The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Speaker’s Business

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the House that I will not be present during the Assembly’s sittings next week as I will be undertaking a number of long-standing private speaking engagements in the United States of America.

Public Petition

Out-of-Hours GP Services in the Ards Peninsula

Mr Speaker: Mr McCarthy has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 959 residents of the Ards Peninsula in the Strangford constituency. It calls for the introduction by the Health Service of measures to enhance the out-of-hours GP services in all parts of the peninsula. The area has several competent and efficient general practitioners, but the out-of-hours on-call service is administered from Bangor, about 25 miles from the Portaferry end of the peninsula. Residents would like a doctor from the area to be available rather than one some distance away in Bangor, particularly in cases of emergency.
The residents ask the Assembly to expedite an improvement to the out-of-hours service.
Mr McCarthy moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Mr Speaker: I shall forward the petition to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Resolved (with cross-community support):
That this Assembly suspends Standing Order 10(2) and Standing Order 10(6) for Monday 22 April 2002. — [Mr B Hutchinson.]

North/South Ministerial Council: Agriculture

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting that took place on 15 April 2002 in Dublin.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The sixth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its agriculture sectoral format was held at Agriculture House in Dublin on 15 April 2002. The meeting was hosted by the Government of the Republic of Ireland and was chaired by Mr Joe Walsh TD, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Mr James Leslie, junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, accompanied me to the meeting. Mr Leslie has agreed the content of my statement.
The Council considered and endorsed a report from the steering group on animal health on co-operation on animal health issues between the Administrations. The report told of the progress that has been made in developing closer co-operation and joint strategies for the improvement of animal health on both sides of the border, notably with regard to internal animal movement controls, portal controls and bio-security measures on farms and agriculture-related premises.
The Council noted that the Administrations have a shared commitment to a common approach to internal movement controls for animals and that substantial progress is being made in aligning the controls that are applied to the import of animals and animal products by each Administration at all points of entry to the island.
The Council also noted the joint initiatives aimed at raising the level of scrapie awareness among flock-owners, promoting common codes of good practice for those involved in agriculture and related industries and developing co-operation in other specific areas, including the eradication of tuberculosis, brucellosis and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE).
The Council endorsed the progress so far recorded and agreed that the foundations have been laid for an all-island animal health strategy. The Council agreed that a co-ordinated and complementary approach to portal controls should be further developed and maintained. It requested the working groups continue their assignments to develop closer co-operation and/or joint strategies for improving animal health on both sides of the border by 31 December 2002.
The Council considered a progress report on the work of the steering committee on cross-border rural development since the last North/South Ministerial Council agriculture sectoral meeting. The consultant’s reports on co-operation between cross-border rural communities and cross-border rural development education, training and research have been completed.
The study of the co-operation between cross-border rural communities recommends an area-based model for enhancing cross-border co-operation that would operate under the umbrella of the local partnership groups, augmented as appropriate by other representatives, in Northern Ireland and the county development boards in the South of Ireland. It is intended that funding for the area-based model would come from the INTERREG III programme’s rural initiative.
The study on cross-border rural development education, training and research identified a need for greater co-ordination of, and access to, practical information on current education, training and research provision. The Council noted that the steering committee is examining both reports and that it will advise Ministers in due course on how best to implement their recommendations.
The Council also noted developments in the World Trade Organisation, EU enlargement and common agricultural policy reform and agreed that Northern and Southern officials should explore matters of concern with a view to further focused discussions at ministerial level.
The Council considered a paper on plant health research and development and noted the progress made by both Administrations. Four areas were identified for ongoing co-operation on the regulation of plant protection products. Those were: pesticide usage surveys; the exchange of information on registered plant protection products and their uses; distributor and operator training and certification, equipment registration and calibration; and further co-operation between the Administrations on the regulation of plant protection products, which includes policy issues and the problem of illegal cross-border trade.
The Council considered a progress report on a study of the pig industry. The report’s main recommendations include the rationalisation of existing slaughter capacity and the scaling up of plant size in line with international best practices. The development of supply chain agreements between producers and primary processors, based on quality customer-oriented specifications, was also identified as essential to the industry.
The Council noted progress in reviewing the report’s main findings, and agreed that officials should continue the process of engaging with the pig industry and development agencies to promote the joint study’s recommendations, with a view to improving the competitive position of the pig sector on the whole island. The Council also noted updates from both Ministers on the ‘Agrifood 2010 Plan of Action’ and the vision group report plans.
The Council approved a paper on behalf of the Special EU Programmes Body that identified the terms of reference for the common chapter joint steering group. It also approved papers on staffing and remuneration for Foras na Gaeilge, one of the North/South language bodies, and the appointment of a new board member.
The next meeting in this sectoral format will take place in Northern Ireland in October 2002. The text of a communiqué to be issued after the meeting was agreed, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Minister will receive communication from the Committee on a parallel inquiry into tuberculosis (TB), brucellosis and botulism. The Committee would like to follow up on the meeting that the Minister reported on today.
Has the working group set up under the North/South Ministerial Council to co-ordinate responses on brucellosis made any conclusions or recommendations?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Working groups have been established and are co-ordinating, collating and exchanging information on the way in which we are tackling TB and brucellosis on both sides of the border. At present, I do not have details of specific proposals. However, I hope, as a result of those groups’ work, to have such details by October.

Mr Eddie McGrady: My question follows on from the previous one, and the Minister has partially answered it. Last November, the Minister met me along with a delegation from some of the TB hot spots in south Down. We drew her attention to experimental research that was being done in the Republic of Ireland on the control of TB and the methods used to do that. In that context, will the Minister assure the House that all-Ireland inoculation will be considered as a general approach to eradicating TB? Will she comment on the review of the way in which TB may be carried by badgers, and on both the proliferation and protection of badgers, especially in Northern Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I recall the meeting with the Member. As a result of that meeting, I asked my officials, during their policy evaluation, to take account of the possible role of badgers in carrying TB. I also recall that Mr McGrady referred to the experiment that was being carried out in the South. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s policy evaluation is nearing completion. I await the report with interest, but I am confident that it will make specific proposals on badgers.
The Member will appreciate that I am unable to give details of those proposals until I have seen the report, which I anticipate will be presented before the summer. As part of the ongoing work of the working groups, North and South, we will also be discussing the implications of that report and the result of our policy evaluation.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome this comprehensive and wide-ranging statement from the Minister, particularly the reference to animal disease. Is there an agreed strategy, on an all-Ireland basis, that will work, North and South? Will it have targets — for example, to work towards the removal of animals from diseased herds within agreed timescales? Will there be an agreed scale, especially in border areas such as south Armagh, and will the targets be reached? Will those matters be discussed at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council?

Ms Brid Rodgers: At the North/South agriculture sectoral meeting, we set a firm basis for the production of joint strategies by the end of this year, and I am confident that we will have those in place by then, including a strategy to deal with the eradication of TB, brucellosis and scrapie on the island of Ireland.

Mr David Ford: The Minister referred to rural development in a number of areas. Can she indicate whether she managed to learn anything from Minister Walsh about the issue of rural proofing, given that she seems to be having a certain amount of difficulty with her Executive Colleagues in dealing with the matter?
With regard to the references the Minister made to animal movement controls, can she say what additional resources are being provided for the control of animal movement in the island as a whole in the light of the current upsurge in TB and brucellosis? Also, how is testing being co-ordinated between North and South to ensure there is no further cross-border infection?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Rural proofing was not discussed as it was not on the agenda, but I can assure the Member that we do not have problems with rural proofing. In fact, a cross-departmental steering group on rural proofing has been set up and will meet tomorrow under my chairmanship.
With regard to animal movement controls, we are continuing to deal with brucellosis through the biennial blood-testing programme. However, in areas with increased incidence, such as Armagh, Newry, and Enniskillen, we have increased the frequency of testing from biennial to annual. Where infection has been found, we have intensified the testing regime around the infected premises on herds contiguous to the infected herd — that is, the inner ring herds being restricted. We immediately test herds in the outer ring contiguous to the inner ring, and subsequently at four-monthly intervals. We have increased our testing in the areas that are being hardest hit, and this policy has been agreed with the Republic.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Have the Minister and her Department any plans to trap badgers for TB testing in black spots of bovine TB infection? Will she concede that this would either establish or disprove the link between the badger population and the incidence of bovine tuberculosis infection? Furthermore, since the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Veterinary Service can test badgers found by farmers, have figures been made available on the number of badgers found to have TB?

Ms Brid Rodgers: As I said in response to Mr McGrady, a policy evaluation is being carried out, and I will make my decision when the results are available. I am not in a position to make any decision at this point.

Mr P J Bradley: I note the comments about the joint initiatives aimed at raising the level of awareness among flock-owners concerning scrapie. In reply to Mr McHugh, the Minister referred briefly to the inclusion of scrapie in the joint health programme. What progress has been made on the establishment of an all-Ireland scrapie eradication plan?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Minister Walsh and I share a commitment to eradicating scrapie from the island of Ireland. The nature of the disease and of the sheep population of this island mean that it makes sense to have a joint approach. We agree that greater flock-owner awareness, enhanced testing, depopulation and the continued assessment of genotyping can contribute significantly to eradicating the disease. Although the approach in each jurisdiction may differ in some detail, they each involve the four elements that I mentioned. The Departments, North and South, will share and evaluate practical experience and findings. Where appropriate, they will also undertake shared initiatives in the context of jointly advancing the achievement of common goals.
The first joint initiative is already under way. It aims to raise the level of awareness of scrapie among flock-owners throughout the island of Ireland and involves the preparation and issue of a common advice leaflet on scrapie for farmers. As far as we are aware, there is a low incidence of scrapie in Ireland — an average of three cases a year in the North and seven in the South. Nevertheless, we wish to ensure that farmers are totally aware of it, and we wish to establish the exact levels of incidence. That approach will ensure that scrapie is ultimately eradicated from the island, and, in the meantime, normal trade may continue in accordance with EU rules.

Mr Derek Hussey: I note from the Minister’s statement that the North/South Ministerial Council considered a progress report and study on the pig industry, and that the main recommendations of the report include the rationalisation of existing slaughter capacity. Will the Minister assure the House that such rationalisation would not disadvantage slaughter capacity in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware that Northern Ireland pig farmers feel disadvantaged because the controls on the export of pigs from Northern Ireland to the Republic are much more stringent than those for the reciprocal import of pigs from the Republic to Northern Ireland? Will that issue be addressed?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The study on the pig industry was initiated in December 1999 because of the grim situation in that industry, which the Member is well aware of. There were several recommendations. One was for the rationalisation of existing slaughtering capacity and the scaling up of plant size. That was to ensure that the industry survived and went forward. The industry is now taking up those issues.
Other recommendations involved the supply chain, the need for secondary processors and the need to improve production efficiency, particularly in Northern Ireland. These matters were discussed at a recent seminar at Loughry College. Slaughter capacity is a commercial matter and is not my responsibility. The research and the report pointed to what needed to be done to ensure the survival and viability of the industry. The industry has examined that and is taking it seriously.
Intracommunity regulations and laws apply to the movement of pigs between the North and the South in the same way as movement between any two member states. We do not have any control over that: we must apply the intracommunity regulations and rules.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Will the Minister be specific as to what measures she has introduced to deal with the backlog of animals with tuberculosis? What measures has she introduced, since the current regulations on cross-border importation of animals, to protect the health of animal stocks in Northern Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have asked my Chief Veterinary Officer to treat the eradication of brucellosis as a priority, and much work has gone into that. Recruitment is under way for veterinary and ancillary staff, in addition to the recent appointments of new valuation officers to speed up the removal of reactors. Additional staff have been moved into the three high-incidence areas of Armagh, Newry and Enniskillen.
The Department is reorganising staff at markets and abattoirs to provide extra resources for brucellosis duties. The bulk milk-sampling programme in dairy herds has allowed additional staff to be allocated to the high-incidence areas. There is annual instead of biennial testing in those areas, and I have outlined what has been done about infected premises and the surrounding areas. Several initiatives have been undertaken to eradicate the problem.
We have caught up with the backlog on the movement of animals, and currently there is no backlog. Additional assessors were put in place to deal with that, and there is also additional capacity for getting rid of the animals.
The rules for the importation of animals still apply and have already been outlined.

Mr John Dallat: I am sure the Minister has no plans to issue passports for the movement of sheep across the border. However, is the sheep identification system compatible with that in the Republic of Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Our system for the identification of sheep delivers the same objective, which is the control and traceability of sheep movements. The existing system delivers registration of flocks, unique identification and online ordering of ear tags by manufacturers. The system is also accessible to approved manufacturers, including those in the Republic of Ireland, by means of an assigned password.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Minister give a breakdown of the figures in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland for scrapie, TB and brucellosis? How many successful prosecutions has her Department taken against people allegedly involved in the illegal spreading of TB and brucellosis in this jurisdiction?
Can she inform the House of the cost to her Department of pursuing that case?
The Minister told us that the January sectoral meeting cost approximately £4,000. Are we right to assume that the most recent meeting also cost £4,000 and that a meeting planned for October will cost taxpayers yet another £4,000? If that is so, does the Minister agree that this is not value for money — much of the business could be done by telephone, and there is little need for the whole apparatus of Government to move into Council format for information to be relayed between the two Departments?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I do not have the figures that the Member has requested. However, I will provide them for him as soon as possible. I do not know the cost of the last meeting of the Council, but I am surprised that he seems to think it a waste of time and money to develop a common strategy on animal health on the island of Ireland. The Member may not be aware that this is a complex matter that cannot be dealt with through a few telephone calls. Several working parties are engaged in the strategy.
An all-island animal health strategy has been called for most vehemently by the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA) and, indeed, the whole industry. I take this very seriously. We saw what happened last year with foot-andmouth disease, and if it had not been for the co-operation between the Minister in the Republic and myself, the meetings that we and officials had at that time and our telephone conversations, we would have been in a much sorrier state than we were by the end of last year.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I welcome the Minister’s statement. What is the Northern line on common agricultural policy (CAP) reform, and what progress has the North/South Ministerial Council made in developing a common approach?

Ms Brid Rodgers: We accept that change is coming and that there will be implications from enlargement, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the review of Agenda 2000. The Commission has said that there will be changes in subsidies and that there will be a move from the first pillar of the common agricultural policy (CAP) to the second pillar, which is rural development. Nevertheless, we have to be concerned about the nature, the pace and the scale of that reform. It must not put unacceptable pressure on farmers and their families or put at risk the viability of the rural economy. There are social and economic issues, and we must avoid creating further marginalisation of rural communities.
On the common approach of the North/South Ministerial Council, I discussed and agreed a set of common concerns and priorities about the future of the CAP at a previous meeting with Joe Walsh, the Republic’s Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. I identified the common concerns when responding to the Northern Ireland priorities. We have agreed to continue to review developments on those matters, especially in the run-up to the mid-term review. When we get the outcome of that in June 2002, we will be able to take further note and decide our priorities. I will also be in discussion with the UK Ministers and Mrs Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on this.

North/South Ministerial Council: Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission held on 15 April 2002 in Dublin.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The eighth meeting of the North/ South Ministerial Council for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission took place on 15 April 2002 in Dublin. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, James Leslie and I represented Northern Ireland.
Mr Frank Fahey, the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, represented the Irish Government. The papers for the meeting were issued to Executive Committee members during the week commencing 8 April.
The meeting opened with reports from the chairperson of the commission’s board, Mr Peter Savage, and the chief executive of the Loughs Agency, Mr Derek Anderson. The chief executive advised that the outstanding accounts for 1997, 1998 and 1999 have now been completed, and those for the years ended 2000 and 2001 are being audited. Outstanding annual reports will be finalised and published soon.
Mr Anderson also said that 11 tenders to carry out an audit of recreational and tourism fisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas have been received, and five applicants have been invited to make presentations to the commission’s board later this month to facilitate a final selection and the commencement of the work in August. He added that work on the stakeholder survey of the shellfisheries of the loughs is progressing well. It is expected that all interviews will be completed by the end of this month, and a report will be available by May.
Ministers were also updated on shellfish production in the 2001 season, and the mussel and oyster fisheries are performing well. Mr Anderson then advised that there continues to be a significant reduction in illegal fishing activity, and that that is attributable to the successful introduction of the salmon carcass tagging scheme. Combined with that, the agency continues to prosecute when it detects illegal activity, and it directs effort towards the detection and prevention of pollution incidents.
Ministers then noted the resignation of a board member of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, Sheila Tyrell, and thanked her for her service. There are no plans to replace her at present.
In addition, Ministers noted the Loughs Agency’s proposals for an Atlantic salmon and seal interactive workshop, which is planned for May 2002. Representatives of the recreational and commercial salmon fisheries, agencies, Departments and other bodies with responsibilities for fisheries and environment matters throughout the island of Ireland will meet at that workshop to discuss past and current research on the interaction of seals and salmon, the abundance of seals in Ireland, the UK and the Atlantic seaboards of Europe and Canada. They will recommend further research and data collection to evaluate the impact of seals on salmon stocks.
Ministers then noted the progress in the agency’s review of its staffing and structure, with the imminent submission of a report to the two sponsoring Departments and the two finance Departments. That was followed by a discussion on the continuing problems associated with the aquaculture site in Carlingford Lough that was licensed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, whose boundaries have caused problems for Northern fishermen in accessing the public mussel fishery. I impressed upon Minister Fahey the continued need for a speedy resolution to those difficulties. He agreed that the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should meet with a view to resolving those issues as soon as possible.
Ministers were then updated on the agency’s plans to equip and open the interpretive centre at its headquarters at Prehen. The centre will provide an excellent educational resource for schoolchildren, the many users of the fisheries resources and the public in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Plans, and work to implement those plans, are well advanced, and the centre remains on target to open in September 2002.
Finally, the Council agreed to meet again in September or October 2002, and it approved the issue of a joint communiqué, a copy of which has been placed in the Assembly Library.
I am making the statement on behalf of Mr Leslie and myself.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give an up-to-date report on the problems of Northern Ireland fishermen in accessing the public mussel fishery because of the site that has been licensed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in Carlingford Lough? She stated that the matter would be dealt with "as soon as possible". That expression can sometimes mean a very long time.
I am sure that she has been well briefed by her representatives about the problem, and I trust that there will be a speedy resolution.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware of the problem, and the problems it is causing fishermen on this side of the lough. However, as the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources licensed the site, it is for that Department to progress an amicable solution, and I understand that it has sought legal advice on the matter. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s aim is to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and ensure that Northern Ireland fishermen have fair access to the public mussel fishery. To that end, it was agreed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting that my Department should meet with Department of the Marine and Natural Resources officials to make further progress towards a solution. I emphasised at that meeting the need to make progress on the issue as soon as possible.

Mr Jim Wilson: Having raised with the Minister in the Chamber the issue of outstanding accounts over five years, I am happy to note that there has been progress. However, as regards outstanding annual reports I seek the Minister’s assurance that where the report says that they will be published in the near future she means "the near future". Does that mean weeks or months?
As regards the proposed Atlantic salmon and seal interactive workshop, I seek the Minister’s assurance that Members will be invited to the workshop — particularly Committee members, who have responsibility for these matters.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The agency’s accounts are being finalised. I thank the Member for his remarks; I know there was much concern about the delay, which I explained at fair length in my last report. Annual reports for 2000-01 will be published following completion of the audit of the accounts. It is intended that that will take place in May — in this case, "as soon as possible" means May.
There are conflicting views and interests concerning Atlantic salmon. It is important that everyone with an interest in the matter is consulted. I would be surprised if Members did not have the opportunity to take part in the consultation. Stakeholders, and anyone with an interest — which I assume would include the Assembly — will be part of the consultation and will be able to comment.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for another comprehensive report on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. In view of the need to address the economic and social disadvantages caused by partition of the island of Ireland and the need to encourage trade, investment and tourism, what is the North/South Ministerial Council doing to promote the Narrow Water bridge project, which will connect the Cooley peninsula in County Louth with South Down? Will she explain the logistics of how schoolchildren and the fishery interests in the Carlingford area could benefit from the interpretive centre at Prehen?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware of the proposed Narrow Water bridge project referred to by Mr McGrady. However, as the project does not lie within the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission’s responsibility, it has had no involvement. I understand the issue being raised by Mr McGrady, and I suggest that it is a matter for the transport sector of the North/South Ministerial Council. The sector met recently and will be making a report.
The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is not involved, although it will be interested to hear what, if anything, is being proposed.
The logistics and organisation of school trips to various parts of Northern Ireland and particularly to the interpretive centre at Prehen are not in my remit. The Prehen centre is an exciting project and would be worth an organised school visit. If the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission had endless resources, it would have such a centre in every corner of Northern Ireland. However, the agency has no plans to open a separate interpretive centre in the Carlingford area. It is to be hoped that schools throughout Northern Ireland will find the resources in their budget to arrange a visit to the Maiden City and Prehen interpretive centre.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement and replies.
What impact have pollution incidents and illegal fishing of salmon had on sport angling in relation to cross-border tourism?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I presume that the Member is referring to the effect of pollution on fish stocks in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. As regards pollution incidents from agricultural or other sources, the agency operates a programme of proactive farm visits that it believes has contributed significantly to a reduction in the number and severity of agricultural pollution incidents. The agency collects information on the productivity of the rivers and streams in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. That information provides indications of previously undetected pollution, thus allowing the agency to focus its proactive anti-pollution work. The agency also endeavours to cover the cost of re-stocking after water pollution incidents, and it believes that that acts as a deterrent to potential polluters. The agency expects to strengthen the legislation in order to require polluters to re-stock and to reinstate.

Mr Maurice Morrow: In her statement, the Minister refers to the
"significant reduction in illegal fishing activity".
Will the Minister define as a percentage what she means by "significant"? Her statement also notes that
"the agency continues to prosecute when it detects illegal activity".
How many successful prosecutions have been brought to date? How many are pending — whether for pollution-related activities or illegal fishing?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Loughs Agency’s predecessor, the Foyle Fisheries Commission, had an effective track record in dealing with poaching in the Foyle area. The Loughs Agency is committed to tackling all illegal fishing activity in its areas of responsibility. Last season, despite the curtailment of the agency’s enforcement activities due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, it seized over 241 illegal nets, 22 boats, and 279 salmon. The introduction of a carcass-tagging scheme in the Foyle and Carlingford areas has also had a positive impact in reducing the levels of poaching. The agency is engaged in 31 prosecutions relating to illegal fishing that took place in 2001.

Mr Tom Hamilton: The Minister mentioned the aquaculture site that was licensed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the boundaries of which have caused problems for Northern Ireland’s fishermen in accessing the public mussel fisheries. What steps is she taking to protect the fishermen’s rights of access to the public fishery in Carlingford Lough? Have the Irish Government assured her that they will ensure that the rights of our fishermen will be upheld and protected? Has she considered seeking assistance from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at Westminster to resolve the matter?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I answered that question when I stated that I had raised the issue at the North/South Ministerial Council. I have raised the matter twice, and I am pressing Minister Fahey to deal with the matter urgently. As Dr Paisley said, it is an urgent matter for the fishermen in the area. I understand their grievance, and I want to deal with the matter as soon as possible.
The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in the South licensed the site, so it must deal with the problem. I am pressing hard for a solution, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is aware of the issue.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: How does the agency plan to ensure the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry in Lough Foyle?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Although powers to license and develop the aquaculture industry in Lough Foyle have not yet been transferred to the Foyle and Carlingford Irish Lights Commission, the Loughs Agency is carrying out extensive consultation to obtain the views of those who work on the lough. When that has been completed, the agency proposes to draw up an implementation plan for introducing an aquaculture regulatory system for Lough Foyle. The agency also plans to provide grant aid to assist the development of the aquaculture sector in the Foyle and Carlingford areas when the necessary legislation has been enacted. The agency has also put in place several monitoring programmes in Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough, including the installation of automatic temperature loggers in both loughs, and bi-monthly sampling to monitor salinity, conductivity, PH and oxygen levels. The agency recently included the collection of nutrient samples in the programme, which will provide information that will be fundamental to the development and management of the shellfish industry.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: After the last sectoral meeting, the Minister said that she had established an advisory forum and focus groups. Did the groups report at the latest meeting or are they expected to report at the next meeting in October? In a letter to me on 29 March, the Minister stated that the establishment of the focus groups had cost £22,000 to date. Is it not about time that a progress report on the lavish expenditure on focus groups was published?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The advisory forum has been established, and it will provide a formal mechanism for interested parties in both areas to express their views on the work of the agency. The membership of the forum includes representatives from a wide range of interests such as shellfishermen, commercial salmon netsmen and anglers. The agency also intends to establish several focus groups to represent specific interests when it meets again in May.
I have not received a report from the agency yet. However, the process is ongoing. The agency is consulting stakeholders, and I look forward to its report. It is important that the advisory forum has been set up and that the stakeholders — and there are many around both loughs — can give their views and be part of the process in which the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission improves aquaculture. I am pleased that the forum has been set up and is in operation. However, it must continue with the consultative process.

Mr Derek Hussey: Will the Minister note my concern about the restrictive remit in the audit of recreational and tourism facilities in the Foyle and Carlingford areas? Will she explain why the wider issue of water-based recreation and tourism activities is not being addressed in the audit; even if it is only about how such activities impact positively or negatively on fisheries?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The issues raised by Mr Hussey are not within the remit of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission.

Mr P J Bradley: The Minister said that the interpretive centre would be open to the wider public in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. I agree with the comments of my Colleague, Mr McGrady, about the distance of the Foyle from Warrenpoint and Carlingford. However, there is potential for an exciting and long day out for the children of the area. Does the Minister intend the centre to be open to all members of the public?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Yes. From the point of view of education, the centre will be of particular benefit to schoolchildren; however, it will also benefit the wider public — helping them to understand the nature of the water base, and the industry, ecology, and the environmental aspects of the area.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The Minister mentioned the significant reduction in illegal fishing. Foot-and-mouth disease prevented possible public prosecutions. Have fish counts on the machines at Sion Mills and Newtownstewart shown a significant increase in the various types of fish making their way into the Mourne, the Strule, and the Foyle? Locally, the perception is that illegal fishing is still rampant and that the number of fish making their way to the headwaters of the Foyle has significantly decreased in the past two years.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am unable to provide the Member with figures today. However, I will provide him with a written answer about the number of fish going through counters at Sion Mills.

North/South Ministerial Council: Education

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have received notice from the Minster of Education that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on education, which was held on 11 April 2002 in Armagh.

Mr Martin McGuinness: With permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I wish to make a statement on the fourth sectoral meeting on education of the North/South Ministerial Council, held in the Armagh City Hotel, Armagh on 11 April 2002. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Minister of the Environment, Mr Dermot Nesbitt, and I, attended the sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. Dr Michael Woods TD, Minister for Education and Science, represented the Irish Government. Mr Nesbitt has approved the statement, and it is also made on his behalf.
The objectives of the meeting were to review the progress of the joint working groups on educational underachievement, special education needs and teacher qualifications that were established at the first sectoral meeting on 3 February 2000, to consider several progress reports from the working groups, to agree issues where further work was required, to endorse proposed future actions and to take decisions on several specific actions, on which I shall elaborate.
First, the Council considered a report from the teachers’ superannuation working group. The working group’s purpose was to examine the feasibility and implications of establishing an agreement for the transfer, on a North/South basis, of the superannuation benefits of teachers who move between the jurisdictions to live and work. The working group has identified, and is now considering, several possible options. It is a complex issue, and cognisance must be taken of existing arrangements in other public-sector schemes. However, we remain confident of the potential for agreement on this after further necessary work is carried out by the working group.
In the wider context of the report by the Centre for Cross Border Studies entitled ‘Study of Obstacles to Mobility of Persons between the two parts of the island of Ireland’, which was considered at the plenary North/ South Ministerial Council meeting last November, we agreed that the centre should be notified of the working group’s work.
The Council also considered a report from the teacher qualifications working group, whose role is to examine teacher mobility on the island. At its previous meeting, the Council agreed that the working group should look at the need for prospective teachers in the South to take an examination in the history and structure of the Irish education system. The working group is still working on that and on the arrangements for the mutual recognition of teachers’ qualifications.
There have been significant changes to the requirements for Irish-language proficiency for teachers in the South. They now relate only to teachers in primary schools or secondary schools in the Gaeltacht, or where teaching is in Irish. Additionally, teachers can now take up to five years to achieve the necessary proficiency. The Department of Education and Science has made special arrangements for language training courses, and the pay differential that existed between teachers who had the language proficiency and those who did not has been removed. Further work remains to be done, and I look forward to receiving the next report from that working group.
The Council considered a report from the literacy and numeracy working group. The House will agree that good literacy and numeracy skills are key to all other parts of the curriculum. That is true here and in the South, and the Council regards that area of work as extremely important. We have agreed that there should be an exchange of materials and good practice among teaching professionals and that the attendance of practitioners at seminars and conferences in both jurisdictions is also important, as is sharing teaching resources and training approaches.
After the previous Council meeting, I reported that we shared with colleagues in the South our experiences of the Reading Recovery programme and new materials that we have produced to help children improve their mathematical skills. The working group has also considered an evaluation of the Reading Recovery programme published by the University of Strathclyde. Proposals have been made by the two universities in the North for a dedicated centre for reading recovery training. However, that is on hold until the working group has had time to look at the idea further and evaluate the potential for such a centre to serve the island of Ireland.
I am pleased that the Department of Education and Science is considering how it might encourage the participation of more schools in the South in the Pushkin Prizes programme, with the aim of bringing participation up to a level equivalent to that of schools here. We are also pleased that a research report carried out by Children’s Books Ireland on behalf of the two Departments on the reading habits of children throughout the island is to be published shortly. It is the first large-scale survey on the leisure-time reading of young people and will provide valuable information for teachers, librarians and others interested in what children like to read.
On numeracy, materials and guidance developed in the North are to be disseminated to teachers and schools in the South. The Council also endorsed the working group’s proposals to examine the joint development of materials and good practice guidance in numeracy, as well as the joint development and evaluation of innovative projects to improve numeracy standards.
We are also keen to tackle in a collaborative manner the issue of how young people and children can be encouraged to attend school and achieve their potential. I reported to the Council that my Department is making arrangements with two education and library boards for four pilot programmes. Those are to be modelled on the South’s home/school/community projects and are aimed at improving the involvement of parents in their children’s education. The pilot programmes with a small number of schools here draw on the considerable experience of those in operation in the South, such as in north Dublin and Dundalk.
Work is also under way on the development of an information pack for schools to promote a positive attitude to school attendance. It is hoped that the initial phase will be completed early in the new academic year.
I am pleased to note that the Department of Education and Science has established a national educational welfare board, and it was agreed that there was ample scope for co-operation with the education welfare service here on a range of issues, such as professional staff development and, perhaps, jointly-developed educational welfare qualifications. The national board is a new body and, therefore, such developments will take a little time to organise.
I have said before that children have a fundamental right to be safe and protected while in school and in other situations, and to be free from the risks of child abuse while in the care of teachers, youth leaders and others. The North/South child-protection working group has examined the complex issues in that area, and I am delighted that the Department of Education and Science is preparing a discussion paper on proposals for a register of unfit people in the South. The consultation process with education partners and others is expected to run until the end of the summer, and I look forward to hearing the outcome at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council.
The Council is convinced that we must co-operate to address the issue of child protection throughout these islands, and the greatest possible level of consistency of approach will be essential. In the North, we are liaising closely with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the provisions to be contained in a proposed protection of children and vulnerable adults Bill, which will come before the Assembly in due course. Such legislation would provide vitally important controls in that area, but we must await the decision of the House.
The development of confidential mechanisms, both North and South, for the registration of teachers and other workers in education who are regarded as unsuitable to work with children and young people must be a high-priority objective. However, the issue is complex, and separate, yet complementary, legislation will be necessary in the North and the South.
In my statement after the previous North/South Ministerial Council meeting, I noted that the Centre for Cross Border Studies in Armagh had, as commissioned by the Council, produced a scoping study on the extent and effectiveness of existing school, youth and teacher exchange programmes. A key recommendation of the study was the need for suitable processes and structures to improve the management and facilitation of school, youth and teacher exchanges, and to improve the quality of such exchanges for participants.
Since the previous Council meeting, officials from both Departments have engaged with a consortium comprising the Youth Council for Northern Ireland, Léargas, and the Belfast office of the education and training group of the British Council. The consortium indicated an interest in developing the necessary structural and procedural approaches suggested in the study, and, at the North/ South Ministerial Council’s request, introduced proposals as to how that might be achieved. Although some refinement of the proposals is needed, the Council endorsed the proposed structure, which comprises a programme management committee, a standing advisory committee and a joint-delivery agency. The Council agreed that officials from both Departments should continue discussions with the consortium, with a view to presenting a further report to the Council when it next meets in early autumn. The outworking of those proposals should result in a more robust and cohesive approach to school, youth and teacher exchanges, improved quality of experience for all those concerned and better value for money.
In the field of special education, the Council’s initial focus has been on autism and dyslexia. The Council noted the latest progress report from the joint working group, and was particularly pleased that action is well under way on the development and production of videos for the parents of children with autism or dyslexia and CD-ROMs for their teachers. If all goes to plan, these resources, which will provide advice and guidance, will be available towards the end of the year.
The Council also noted that plans are under way at the Centre for Cross Border Studies to engage a special education teacher on secondment to organise and facilitate a jointly funded programme designed to promote dialogue and co-operation among professionals in the field of special education and to develop co-operation at a strategic level throughout the island. The programme will include exchange visits for teachers, principals, educational psychologists, inspectors and other relevant staff, with a focus on the border counties. The teacher will be in place at the start of the next academic year, and it is intended that the programmes will commence early in 2003.
The Council welcomed the publication of four comprehensive reports from the task groups on autism and dyslexia that were set up separately by the two Departments, North and South, in the autumn of 2000. The task group reports are the result of extensive research and discussions among groups of experts and practitioners in those fields. The reports produced in the South have been published, and the reports from the task groups in the North are with the printers. I intend to launch them formally early next month.
It is remarkable, though not surprising, that the reports produced by the task groups in the North and in the South identify and share many common themes. For example, the four reports highlight needs in the following areas: training for classroom teachers to identify children who may have autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) or dyslexia, to address those children’s difficulties and to determine how best to meet their needs; the need for the earliest possible diagnosis and intervention; the involvement of parents in the assessment of their children’s difficulties, and training for parents in suitable approaches to meeting their children’s needs so that continuity of care and learning approaches can be provided during the child’s day; multi-agency and multidisciplinary assessment and educational/therapy provision; and consistency in assessment criteria and levels of provision among agencies. Importantly, all four reports note a significant underidentification of children with these difficulties.
There are wide-ranging implications in these reports for service providers at all levels in the North, including in schools, at education and library board and health board level and in further and higher education. Indeed, as both autism and dyslexia are lifelong conditions, they have implications for society as a whole. I intend to convene a conference in the autumn term of this year at which service providers, policy-makers and practitioners can come together to discuss the reports and their responses to the vital, yet pragmatic, issues raised in them.
Michael Woods and I were delighted to announce a major, exciting development that will see the first centre of excellence on the island for work in the field of autistic spectrum disorders. The interim reports from the task groups showed that such a facility is badly needed.
As a result of discussions undertaken jointly by officials from the two Departments, North and South, agreement was reached in recent weeks for the acquisition of the former St Joseph’s adolescent training centre in Middletown in order to establish a centre of excellence for autistic spectrum disorders. The facilities are in excellent condition, as proven by formal surveys undertaken on behalf of the two Departments, and we hope that the legal formalities can be completed in the near future.
The Departments will jointly fund the purchase of St Joseph’s, and we expect that its doors will open in autumn 2003. The centre will be run by a board of management and trustees to be established on a joint basis. However, many details — such as referral and admissions arrangements, budgetary arrangements, management, staffing and teaching resources and servicing — are yet to be finalised. Those details are under examination.
Autism is a growing concern throughout the island of Ireland. The development of the centre represents a great opportunity to develop guidance on best practice. Autism is a very particular type of disorder. It causes a range of difficulties that require specialist skill and diagnosis, assessment and provision. Professionals who work routinely with autistic children are still developing their knowledge of the disorder.
The centre will allow all the professionals from the health and education sectors to develop expertise that can be shared more widely. I am particularly excited that this will include expertise in working with families with children who have autistic spectrum disorders. The work in the centre will focus in particular on research, the training of teachers and other professionals, and the development of guidance and advice on good practice in diagnosis, assessment and approaches to working with children with autistic spectrum disorders.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
The Council was pleased to note that, under measure 5.5 of the EU Peace II programme, the two Departments had received some 33 bids for funding between the launch of the measure on 16 January and the closing date for applications on 15 March. The funds available for the promotion of school and youth co-operation amount to approximately 5·3 million euros. The total value of the bids received is 9·9 million euros, which is almost double the available funding.
Officials in both Departments have been working together closely for many months to set up the necessary administrative procedures to handle bids. I hope that the selection panel will be able to complete the selection process by early May, with notification to successful and unsuccessful bidders being made as soon as possible thereafter. I am unable to give the House any details of the bids, but there is an excellent range of types of project proposals, covering a wide variety of issues and approaches.
The Council agreed the text of a communiqué that was issued following the meeting, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library. A date has not been set for the next meeting, but the Council hopes to meet again in September or October.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I notice that a jointly funded centre to study autism will be based on the border. There will be a delay in the establishment of the reading recovery training centre, which was to have been based at the universities in Northern Ireland, to allow time to examine the possibility of an all-Ireland centre. There will be a jointly developed educational welfare qualification, and there is a proposal to develop jointly the evaluation of projects to improve numeracy standards.
The DUP maintains that cross-border bodies were designed to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. The report seems to confirm that the Minister is determined, by stealth and bit by bit, to marry the two Education Departments on this island. Can the Minister confirm that the Ulster Unionist Minister who accompanied him on the trip agreed to this process, or was that Minister asleep while the proposals were being put in place?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I do not really know what to say about that — it is all so predictable. As Minister of Education, I am charged with the responsibility of ensuring the best possible education for all our children. I have no doubt that the work that has been accomplished in the education sectoral format is for the benefit of all the children of this state and, in my view, of this island. People throughout the island of Ireland who are interested in education are keen to see co-operation between educationalists and the Education Ministers.
When I hear the type of comments that I have just heard, I wonder how the parents of an autistic child or the parents of a child who has problems with dyslexia feel when they hear this rubbish. This has been the most exciting announcement made thus far on education. I wonder how parents all over this island feel when they see the result of the work done on the establishment of an all-island centre of excellence for the treatment of autism. I think that those parents are elated. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I think that they are more than pleased that, at long last, the Departments of Education on this island are prepared to pool their resources in order to put in place centres of excellence that will be of huge benefit to all of the children of this island.
It is also important to point out that this centre of excellence has not been set up for the Nationalist or Republican children of this island. It has been set up for all the children, including Unionist and Loyalist children, who suffer great disadvantage in their lives as a result of these syndromes. Let us therefore get rid of the nonsense, and let us recognise that there is no threat to anyone in moving forward to bring about a greatly enhanced education system. People should see the developments for what they are — interesting, exciting and innovative developments, which are solely about ensuring that we have the best possible standard of education for our children on this island.

Mr Tom Hamilton: I refer to the point about teacher qualifications raised by the Minister in his statement. I note that at a previous meeting the Council agreed that the working group should look at the requirement for prospective teachers in the South to take an examination on the history and structure of the Irish education system — a requirement, as the Minister will agree, which is a significant bar for teachers from Northern Ireland who may wish to apply for positions in the Republic. While I note that the Minister says that the working group is continuing to look at the matter, it is a statement that is distinctly lacking in detail. Can the Minister tell the House exactly what progress has been made on the removal of this particular barrier?
In addition, I note that although the requirement for the Irish language now exists only in secondary schools in the Gaeltacht, or where teaching is through the medium of the Irish language, it is still a requirement in all primary schools. Again, that is a significant barrier to a substantial number of teachers in primary schools in Northern Ireland who may wish to apply for positions in the Republic. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what precise —

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to come to his question. This is an opportunity to ask a question of the Minister.

Mr Tom Hamilton: What precise progress has been made in removing this barrier as well?

Mr Martin McGuinness: First, as the Member correctly said, the Irish-language proficiency requirement is now limited to teachers in the primary schools, second-level teachers in Gaeltacht schools and teachers required to teach through the medium of Irish. In addition, individuals are now afforded a five-year period in which to satisfy the proficiency levels of the Irish language requirement, and the differential rates of pay pending the acquisition of the certificate have been abolished. Obviously, great progress has been made, and there is no doubt whatsoever that this will be of considerable relief to many teachers who have expressed an interest in having greater mobility on the island of Ireland. On the whole issue of primary schools, we have to recognise that, thus far, the Department of Education and Science in Dublin has shown considerable flexibility and a willingness to explore all of these issues. I have no doubt that we will return to this matter again.
Pending the establishment of the general teaching council, the working group will be giving further consideration to the requirement for an examination on the history and structure of the Irish education system and to the present arrangements for the recognition of qualifications. All this work is fledgling, and we are exploring the willingness on all sides to recognise the huge benefits of making life easier for teachers. Huge benefits can be accrued by the education systems, North and South, and that is what this is designed to do.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome, and am looking forward to, the launch of the task group’s report early next month. The Minister has mentioned some of the matters that the report will deal with, but will it make any recommendations? If so, will there be a timetable for implementing them? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be adequate funding for full implementation? How will this report fit in with the special education needs and disability Bill? Will it in turn be put on the back burner as, unfortunately, has happened with the Bill? The Department has not seen fit to present it during the lifetime of this Assembly. Where will the report fit in the bigger picture?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Everyone interested in special education will be keenly interested in the publication of these vital reports on autism and dyslexia. These reports will clearly show all involved in education how to deal with these problems. There is not much point in bringing out reports on important issues if we are not prepared to make proposals. It is vital that we do that.
I have seen some of the work that has been done in the reports that have been published by the Department of Education and Science in Dublin. As I said in my statement, the similarities between our systems of education, considering the work that we have done through our working groups on autism and dyslexia, are startling. Clearly, there is much to be gained, and we intend to make progress here. I will be holding conferences in the autumn to discuss the response of the education sector to the autism and dyslexia reports, and we obviously want to hear people’s views on them. They will make powerful contributions to the debates on these subjects. Special education has been a top priority since I became Minister of Education. I understand and recognise the great difficulties that many parents, children and educationalists have with this.
Ms Lewsley also mentioned the special education needs and disability Bill. The difficulty with that was that, at the beginning, the Bill was being taken forward by two Departments — the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Education. It has now been decided that the Department of Education will take it forward. It is a complex Bill with many issues connected to it. Just look at the reaction to the attempt to put such legislation in place in Dublin. There was huge controversy recently with people alleging that it did not adequately meet the needs of those who were affected. We do not want to make the same mistake, so we are being careful to ensure that our approach is comprehensive.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also welcome the Minister’s statement, but not for any party political reason. Much in it and many recent announcements, particularly about special education, are welcome. I have a particular interest in autism, and many parents have contacted me recently who are hopeful and excited about the prospect of a centre of excellence in Middletown.
It has given them renewed hope. Many parents get frustrated when dealing with the issue of autism with educationalists and boards. The centre is good news for Middletown and for the parents of children with autism throughout the island of Ireland.
The statement rightly says that the reports from the task groups will have wide-ranging implications for service providers at all levels in education. In the experience of those of us who have attempted to deal with boards and educationalists on the problems of autism, that is much needed. Can the Minister tell us when the centre will be up and running, and whether he expects it to play a central role in the outworking of the implications of the reports from the task groups?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The centre will be up and running in the autumn of next year. We, and the Department of Education and Science, will be under great pressure to achieve that, but we are determined that the centre of excellence will open next autumn. The centre will provide a huge relief for parents all over the island of Ireland who, for far too long, have been struggling with that condition. I am very much looking forward to the establishment of the centre of excellence. The results of the working parties and groups will be factored into the work to be done at this important research and assessment centre.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement covering a wide range of issues. It is obvious that the work being done on the different educational issues will help all the children of the island, including the children of Northern Ireland.
I will confine my questions to several specific issues. Will the evaluation of the recovery programme from the University of Strathclyde, dealing with literacy and numeracy, be passed to the Education Committee so that it can have a look at the findings? Is there any indication of a timetable for the complementary legislation on child protection? Ms Lewsley has already referred to the delays.
Finally, although I warmly welcome the establishment of the centre, and the work that will be done with autism and dyslexia, will the necessary funds for the work be made available without being taken from the capital or general education budget? The Minister knows that special education is a pet project of mine and that I believe that it should be considered specifically and differently.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Strathclyde report will be made available to the Education Committee. My officials have worked closely with Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety officials on the proposals for the protection of children and vulnerable adults Bill. We have already been out to consultation on those. The consultation period ended on 31 December 2001. The comprehensive proposals are intended to cover all those working with children, including teachers and other education sector employees, and the main proposal is to establish a statutory list of persons who are unsuitable to work with children.
It will not dispense with the need to carry out a criminal records check on educational sector employees. As stated in the consultation paper, the Bill would create a broad equivalent to the Protection of Children Act 1999 and Part VII of the Care Standards Act 2000 in England and Wales.
Through the Bill, and by mirroring the approach adopted in the Protection of Children Act 1999, the Department of Education proposes to make an amendment to the regulatory powers contained in the Department’s primary legislation to allow the Department to draw up Regulations to strengthen, where appropriate, the safeguards in the education sector. Drawing up any such Regulations would involve separate consultation in due course.
The last matter is where the money will come from. I am very conscious of the points that have been made by the Member in the past about the need to ring-fence special education resources. We believe that we have adequately proven in recent times that funding must be in addition to the special educational needs budget. For example, the funding for Middletown will be in addition to the special needs budget. We have already had £1·7 million from the Executive programme children’s fund.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Three years ago I asked the Minister to investigate the possibility that those who had earned their livelihood in the South of Ireland teaching and lecturing could have their superannuation made available if they came to reside in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure us today that that anomaly has been eradicated and that those who worked and earned their superannuation in the South of Ireland could enjoy the less inflationary situation in the North and receive their salary here?

Mr Martin McGuinness: At the moment, as everyone knows, teachers who move to take up a job either in the North or the South cannot add their previous service to their new employment for the purposes of calculating pension benefits. That is an obstacle to mobility, and its removal would benefit all teachers, North and South.
This is a complex area, and several technical issues must be thoroughly investigated and resolved before firm proposals can be brought before the Council. The working group will notify the Centre for Cross Border Studies of the work carried out to date. Careful consideration needs to be given to the implications for other public sector schemes, particularly those with a high degree of cross-border movement of members. Even though the discussions have some way to go, I am pleased that the working group has shown that there is potential for agreement between the jurisdictions in relation to the establishment of a transfer system for teachers’ pensions. The Member can be assured that all issues, including those that he has raised, will be considered.

Mr John Dallat: I also welcome the increasing co-operation, which is so necessary and so much overdue. This is all about children. In an effort to rebuild the natural infrastructures that were destroyed by partition, are there any plans to formalise arrangements so that pupils that live along the border can attend the school nearest their home, when that school is on the other side of the border, be it North to South or South to North?

Mr Martin McGuinness: That is a difficult issue, and one that has been raised in several ways recently, particularly in relation to school transport along the border. I have previously signalled my willingness to explore, with the Department of Education and Science, how we can deal with that matter under the education sectoral format, and I hope to do that in the future.

Mr Gerry McHugh: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and detailed statement on the North/South Ministerial Council education sectoral meeting. Several points have been covered that are of interest to the Committee for Education, including child protection, special education and exchange of pupils and teachers. What structure is proposed for the development and delivery of that exchange programme, which would be of particular benefit to schoolchildren on both sides of the border?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The proposed structure has three elements: a programme management committee, which will be responsible for the development of policy and strategy; a standing advisory committee, which will involve a range of stakeholders and which will contribute to policy development and advise on priorities; and a joint development agency, which will promote the programme, target schools and youth groups, assist partner finding, develop new initiatives and put in place monitoring and evaluation procedures.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the very significant change in Sinn Féin policy on literacy and numeracy. People associated with the distribution of the Pushkin Prize will no longer be subjected to Sinn Féin attacks, and that is to be welcomed. I hope that the Minister will now give a categorical assurance to the House that neither he nor his Colleagues, nor his party operating in Ulster or in the Republic of Ireland, will engage in such attacks or threats of attacks on schools associated with the distribution of the Pushkin Prize programme.
The Minister mentioned child protection in his statement. Will the people who are registered as unfit, North and South, include those with a criminal record? Will it include people who have been involved in punishment beatings? Will it include people who have confessed to being commanders in terrorist organisations? If those people are registered as unfit to have any involvement with children, will that also apply to departmental staff?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have attended events sponsored by the Pushkin Prize in the company of the Duchess of Abercorn. She is doing a magnificent job showing children all over the island of Ireland their real potential for poetry, story telling and story writing. The Duchess of Abercorn and the Pushkin Prizes make a tremendous contribution to the education of our children. I have no difficulty whatsoever in associating myself with a very progressive area of work.
The second part of the question is more political than educational, but it is in all of our interests — and I am very keen to see this happen — that no one who is unfit will work with children.

Pneumoconiosis, etc (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002

Ms Carmel Hanna: I beg to move
That the Pneumoconiosis, etc (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 133/2002) be approved.
The Regulations were laid before the Assembly on 12 April 2002, and they will not come into operation until the day after they are approved by resolution, which is tomorrow. The Department for Employment and Learning operates the pneumoconiosis scheme under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. The scheme acts as a safety net for employees who have contracted one of the lung diseases covered by the Order, but who are unable to take court action to recover damages from the liable employer or employers. That is generally because the employer has ceased trading.
The scheme offers a one-off lump sum payment as compensation to eligible individuals or their dependants. The Regulations will increase the amount of compensation payable under the Order by 3·8%, which is in line with the retail price index. Such regular increases ensure that the compensation payments made to sufferers of these terrible diseases keep pace with inflation. I commend the Regulations to the Assembly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I support the motion to affirm Statutory Rule 133/2002, albeit subject to a qualification to which I will come.
As the Minister says, the Statutory Rule relates to sufferers or their dependants, where the employer no longer carries on business. The Committee considered the policy behind the Statutory Rule on 29 November 2001, when it agreed to seek clarification from the Department. The Committee subsequently received details of the financial consequences of this legislation. The Department’s response was placed before the Committee on 24 January 2002, and at that stage, the Committee agreed to support the policy.
The Committee considered the Statutory Rule at its meeting on 18 April. However, due to the late laying of the Statutory Rule there was little time for the Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules to consider the detail. The timing was tardy. However, it was more worrying that the Statutory Rule contained a technical drafting error. This was set out in the Examiner of Statutory Rules draft report of 18 April — the same day as the Committee meeting. Due to the serious nature of the Statutory Rule for those it affects, to which the Minister has rightly drawn attention, the Committee does not wish to delay compensation. Thus, we have agreed to affirm the motion now, but on the condition that a further Statutory Rule subject to negative resolution is laid in the near future. The Committee seeks that assurance from the Minister.
I would like the Minister to reassure the Assembly that the issue of the treatment of associates of those affected, who also develop the disease as a result of contamination from the primary source through contact with clothing, for example, will be addressed. However, I accept that that the issue has wider implications than this Statutory Rule, since this rule is about supporting ex-employees of businesses that have gone bankrupt. The Committee for Employment and Learning supports the motion.

Dr Ian Adamson: Dr Birnie has already asked my question.

Mr Speaker: That rarely stops other Members from asking the same question again. The Member is to be commended for his consideration.

Ms Carmel Hanna: These Regulations provide much needed support to sufferers of industrial lung diseases who are unable to claim damages from the owners of the businesses responsible for their condition. It is important that compensation levels are not allowed to erode through inflation. For this reason the rates of payment should be increased in line with the retail price index.
First, I apologise to the Committee for the short time it had to consider the Statutory Rule. Secondly, in answer to the Chairperson’s question, the issue of associates can be looked at. Thirdly, in his scrutiny, the Examiner of Statutory Rules identified an ambiguity in regulation 2(1). The Department will make an amendment removing the ambiguity through negative resolution as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Pneumoconiosis, etc (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 133/2002) be approved.

Maternity and Parental Leave Etc (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002

Ms Carmel Hanna: I beg to move
That the Maternity and Parental Leave etc (Amendment No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR135/2002) be approved.
These Regulations were laid before the Assembly on 5 April 2002 and came into operation on 21 April 2002. They are subject to confirmation by the Assembly within six months of that date. They amend the Maternity and Paternal Leave etc Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, which I shall refer to as the principal Regulations. The principal Regulations implemented in Northern Ireland the European Framework Agreement on Parental Leave. They introduced a new right for employees who had a baby or adopted a child on or after 15 December 1999, and who had completed one year’s qualifying service with their employer, to take 13 weeks’ unpaid parental leave within five years of their child’s birth or adoption.
The amended Regulations extend the right to unpaid parental leave to the parents of children who were born or adopted in the five years before that date. They increase from 13 weeks to 18 weeks the amount of leave that is available to the parents of disabled children. In addition, they allow more parents to balance more effectively their work and home lives, and they give the parents of disabled children much-needed flexibility. Those arrangements will benefit not only employees, but also employers and society in general.

Mr Speaker: I confirm that, although a paternal leave Regulation may be very desirable, these are maternity and parental leave Regulations, which are slightly different.

Dr Esmond Birnie: That is an important point, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your clarification.
The Committee supports the motion to confirm Statutory Rule 135/2002. The original pre-draft Statutory Rule was placed before the Committee at its meeting on 24 January 2002. The Committee sought clarification as to whether the Statutory Rule was intended to create parity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That information was presented to the Committee on 21February 2002. At that stage the Committee agreed to support the broad policy aspects of the Statutory Rule, which the Minister outlined. At its most recent meeting on Thursday, 18 April 2002, the Committee agreed to support the Statutory Rule.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I extend my apologies for reading the title as it was spelt on my paper. I should have known better.
The Statutory Rule helps working parents to balance their professional and family lives. In so doing, it encourages skilled employees who might otherwise have difficulties in striking a work/life balance to remain in the workforce. In addition, it is fundamentally good for parents and children to spend more time together.
Public consultation carried out by my Department identified widespread support for the right to parental leave. Now that businesses have become familiar with their responsibilities under the 1999 Regulations, they will have no difficulty in adjusting to the increased amount of leave that will be available to the parents of disabled children, and the extension of parental leave to all parents with children under five, when the amended Regulations come into operation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Maternity and Parental Leave etc (Amendment No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 135/2002) be approved.

Mobile Phones

Mr Jim Shannon: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure the complete implementation of the recommendations made by the independent expert group on mobile phones, as laid out in the Stewart Report, and further, to implement a change in legislation to ensure that no telecommunications masts are constructed within 300 yards of any dwelling without full public consultation.
The motion arises from the concerns and representations that have been made to me and to other Members. Mobile phones are a dangerous necessity in our daily lives, and our work is almost impossible without them. Talking on a mobile phone has become as natural as eating or sleeping. They are used universally, and, were it not for our mobile phones, Members and other politicians would be excluded from the cut and thrust of political life. However, danger arises from the masts that are placed around the country to pick up signals and ensure that our conversations proceed uninterrupted no matter where we are.
The problem is that telecommunications masts are increasingly being placed in urban areas or in proximity to housing and schools. Last week, a plan was passed to allow the erection of a mast in one of the main shopping streets in Newtownards. The mast is so centrally located that children going to school and adults going to work will pass it every day. Some people will work in the buildings adjacent to it, and that might make many businesses consider their future and relocate elsewhere. Businesses that were thinking of opening in Newtownards might think again if they face the prospect of having a telecommunications mast outside their front door.
Masts are creeping across the countryside. I do not wish to see any more of them in towns or near people’s homes. Telecommunications masts have the potential to dent seriously the productivity of a town and its ability to attract new investors. They will be as devastating to many towns as the repercussions of the disaster of September 11, which are still being visited on many towns in the Province.
Telecommunications masts have caused controversy across the Province among all political parties and individuals on many grounds, including visual obstruction, neighbour notification, the proximity of houses, and strongly and sincerely held health concerns.
We have been told that telecommunications companies will face tighter restrictions on planning and masts. However, that does not account for the number of masts that were erected with prior approval in areas where there was opposition from 99% of the local residents. One of the largest petitions voicing opposition to the erection of a mast occurred in my constituency, where more than 1,200 people wrote in opposition to one such application.
Masts are regularly erected with no regard for the people who live next to them. They are everywhere, and they are often conspicuously placed without any scrutiny of the architectural style of the town or the area. Usually those monstrosities are hoisted up with no consideration of the area’s character.
We need only look at the countryside to see how much of the landscape has changed for the worse. Masts have marred areas of incredible beauty along the County Down coast, and that is a problem. The masts detract from the natural beauty of Northern Ireland, where the potential for tourism has only recently been revealed after 30 years of terrorism, which, if recent news reports are to be believed, may not be over yet.
To place masts in rural locations may lead some to believe that there is less of a problem. However, I am convinced — as are many elected representatives — that there is more than one problem with placing masts in the countryside. What is the effect of siting a mast in the middle of a field of staple foods, such as wheat, potatoes or barley? What effect will that have on our health and the health of our children? People ask those questions every day. Sir William Stewart’s report stated that people’s susceptibility to environmental hazards can vary. However, the Assembly works for all people in Northern Ireland, whether or not they are susceptible to such hazards. We have a duty to protect everyone.
Sir William Stewart’s report is lengthy. However, it contains much good information of which Members should take note. It is not fully known whether masts built in arable fields can leak emissions into the food chain, as mobile phones are a burgeoning technology and not enough research has been completed to be sure of the answer to such queries. People have health concerns, and they are worried. The Assembly must, therefore, respond to those concerns.
The Government would have us believe that there is minimal risk. However, they told us that it was safe to eat beef and that CJD would never enter the food chain. Sadly, Northern Ireland suffered the latest death from that disease only last week. It left a young woman without her husband and partner in life, two young children without a father, and, indeed, Newtownabbey Borough Council without a rising talent.
The Government also told us that overhead power lines were as safe as houses. However, power lines have been shown to contribute to the development of cancers. Four thousand people are killed each year in their homes, and three million turn up at accident and emergency wards with serious injuries that were sustained at home. That demonstrates the sort of rot that the Government sometimes tell us to keep us quiet.
Such new technologies need to be thoroughly investigated before they are made available or intrude into the everyday lives of the people of Northern Ireland. The problem with mobile phone masts, and the phones themselves, is that they were let loose on people without such investigations being made, and they have now become far too integral to modern life to be removed. However, we can limit the possible damage by being prudent with laws and regulations and by investing in research.
The first area that should be stringently regulated is the planning minefield. I am glad that the Minister is present for the debate, because I spoke to him about the issue in Newtownards two weeks ago. Planning has let many people down. It seems that if and when a telecommunications company wishes to install a mast it can do so without a licence if the area is not one of special control.
In Ganaway in my constituency, an application was made for a 15-foot mast in February 2001. Planning permission was deferred because the mast would have been too close to a planned caravan park and dwelling. A second planning application was made, putting the mast even closer to the caravan park. The objectors to the first application were notified. Notification also went to the press on 9 August 2001. Objectors submitted a petition on 15 August 2001. Five days later the planners notified the objectors that, after due consideration, permission had been granted for the erection of the mast.
As it would have taken at least one day for the letters to arrive at the addresses, it means that the planners, with their busy schedules and numerous other pending plans, took only three days to consider the petitions and plans for the mast. It took them three days to decide that a mast on which a decision had previously been deferred because of visual intrusion was no longer so when it was moved closer to the caravan park.
Sir William Stewart noted such problems in his report. He recommended that a robust template be set in place within 12 months of the publication of his report, which was published at the end of April 2001. It takes longer for the Assembly to debate the implementation of a report than it does for the planning applications and the Department to replace those masts. At the speed at which the Ganaway mast was installed, around 122 masts could have been decided on by the time the Assembly got around to debating the issue.
Some of those masts, including the one built in Ganaway, are within 10 metres of dwellings. I agree that there should be exclusion zones set up across Northern Ireland. They should be seen as physical barriers and should be part of the template of planning protocol. However, we should go further. Northern Ireland should not only have no-go areas for humans where the recommended exposure guidelines have been surpassed; it should have no-go areas for telecommunications masts. Those should include populated areas, or should at least put exclusion barriers around housing and shops, extending for a minimum of 300 yds from any dwelling. I use that figure because those who have concerns about telecommunications masts suggested that 300 metres was a comparatively safe distance from dwellings.
Sir William Stewart’s recommendation of an independent ombudsman to provide a focus for decisions on the siting of base stations — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: I cannot comment on the safety of mobile phone masts, but I can say that it is out of order for mobile phones to ring in the Chamber. All Members should attend to that.

Mr Jim Shannon: Sir William Stewart’s recommendation that an independent ombudsman should be appointed to provide a focus for decisions on the siting of base stations when agreement cannot be reached locally is the only way forward.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: On a point of information, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I can take a point of order, but the Member will need permission for a point of information.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the House know if the mobile phone that was ringing belongs to a Member? If so, do we know which Member?

Mr Speaker: There is not perfect stereophonic hearing in this part of the Chamber, but I got the impression that it may have been the speaker’s — not this Speaker’s, but that speaker’s.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Is the Member happy to confirm that?

Mr Speaker: The Member may certainly be able to confirm it.

Mr Jim Shannon: As I said earlier, we all have mobile phones, myself included.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Member confirmed that it was his mobile phone?

Mr Speaker: It sounded very much like a confirmation to me.

Mr Jim Shannon: It was a confirmation that I have a mobile phone.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Thank you for that confirmation, Mr Speaker.

Mr Jim Shannon: I suspect that everyone in the Chamber has a mobile phone. They are a part of life, but we are trying to address the issue of telecommunications masts.
Sir William Stewart’s recommendation that an independent ombudsman be appointed to provide a focus for decisions on siting base stations when agreement cannot be reached locally is the only way forward. Certainly, we all want mobile phones. After all, we have come to depend on them. Members use them to contact constituents, the Business Office and researchers, to touch base with party advice centres, and sometimes to tell our wives that we will not be home that night, or perhaps the next night, because we have constituents to see.
However, we are unsure of the exact consequences of habitually using mobile phones, or of what they do to our bodies. People do not know whether they are predisposed to developing cancer or whether they have accelerated the disease because they use mobile phones or are forced to live near a mast because mobile phone companies have had carte blanche to site masts as close as 10 metres to homes across Northern Ireland.
If an ombudsman were employed to investigate planning issues solely concerned with telecommunications masts and base stations, those who worked for him could access specialist information — and not just information from telecommunications companies that are working for their own benefit. The ombudsman should be informed of all the latest research and should listen to the thousands of people who feel that their health has been affected by telecommunications masts that have left them with memory loss, headaches, skin problems, ear problems, leukaemia, childhood cancers, sleep problems, mental and heart conditions, blood problems, calcium interference and difficulty concentrating. Can we ignore those? I think not.
I call for an independent ombudsman because of controversy over whether researchers in the industry are truly independent. ‘The Observer’ reported that a doctor who acts as a consultant for Microwave Consultants Ltd, which researched links between microwave radiation, health worries and tissue conductivity in particular, also just happens to be a senior consultant for Orange plc. It is also true that people researching links between microwaves and the ill health of those living or working with radios, mobile phones, et cetera, get half their money from companies that make mobile phones and erect masts across the country. That practice cannot be allowed to continue unchecked — after all, it is only good business sense to pay for the results that one wants.
In addition to the independent ombudsman, Departments must be involved in mobile phone research. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should be involved in funding research into health problems that sufferers blame on mobile phones and the proximity of their houses to telecommunications masts and base stations. There is no smoke without fire. Research into that might, in the long term, cut down on the number of people who are being diagnosed with incurable cancers, because the information gleaned would enable some to remove themselves from situations or places that encouraged the onset of such diseases.
If the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety were to spend some money on researching the issue, other Departments could contribute and take up some of the research provision. For example, the Department of the Environment could research exactly what masts and stations do to the environment. Does the environment pass on its exposure to microwaves to humans through the food chain? The Department of the Environment could answer that question.
In the Stewart Report, Sir William stated that, in the matter of mobile phones and telecommunications masts, areas to be investigated were the effects on brain function, the consequences of exposure to pulse signals and the possible impact on health of subcellular and cellular changes induced by radiation.
Our investigations must be further-reaching. The lives of everyone in this country depend on that. It has been said that one in three of us will develop cancer. How many cancers could be prevented by a thorough investigation into the effect of radio waves? It is for us, as elected representatives, to ensure that everyone is safeguarded and fully informed of the possible dangers.
The most dangerous thing about this is the amount of hearsay and misinformation gleaned by people from newspapers and television documentaries. We have all seen the scaremongering. Not only does that hamper the truth and the real results of investigations into the effects of mobile phones and telecommunications masts, it makes it harder to find out the truth because the companies are defensive, and their researchers are the only ones with sufficient expertise and specialist information to research the full extent of long-term exposure to those emissions.
Sir William Stewart also recommended that the masts and their base stations should not be placed in any schools without the consent of the school and the pupils’ parents. There have been two such examples in the past few months: one in Killinchy and the other in Comber. The mast at Comber Primary School was moved, and I understand that the board of governors has asked the South Eastern Education and Library Board to remove the mast at Killinchy Primary School. To my knowledge, that recommendation has largely been ignored. Everyone —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has now been on his feet for nearly 17 minutes in a two-hour time-limited debate. I appreciate that the term "It’s good to talk" in the context of phones is a popular one, but many Members wish to talk in this debate, and very few will get a chance unless the proposer brings his introductory speech to an end, knowing that he will be winding up as well.

Mr Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was unsure how much time I had.
I want to address two more issues: mast-sharing and roaming. I suggest that telecommunications firms should consider sharing masts. Until now they have appeared to be reluctant to do so. I do not know whether the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment would be responsible for it, but the viability of such a suggestion should be investigated.
The other issue relates to emissions from mobile phones and masts. It is recommended that the widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-essential calls should be discouraged. That also forms part of the report. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety could support that recommendation by ensuring that information on the health risks from the use of mobile phones is available to everyone, and especially to children and their parents.
I urge Members to support the proposal.

Mr Speaker: I must urge Members to restrain themselves to about five minutes each, and even with that all Members who wish to speak may not be able to.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Does that include phone calls? I welcome the opportunity to speak on the topic, as it has directly affected my constituency for years, particularly in the past 12 months. We should take the opportunity to ensure that the impending legislation is appropriate. We already know that the Department is allowing for public consultation. That is not enough. The amount of mobile phones and masts has increased dramatically in recent years, and their safety has always been in question. It is not appropriate that this should be solely a planning matter.
Planning leaves no room to discuss health issues. The arguments about mobile phones and their masts usually boil down to the sufficient evidence debate. Mobile phone companies defend themselves with the argument that radio frequencies have not been adequately proven to cause health defects. However, the World Health Organisation (WHO) confirms that current studies to ascertain the real effects of radio frequencies are inadequate, and it proposes that more testing be carried out to establish the lasting effects. WHO states that
"there are gaps in knowledge that have been identified for further research to better assess health risks."
WHO estimates that it will take up to four years for all required research to be completed and evaluated. I am not happy to continue as we are for a further four years, especially as we do not have access to available evidence, such as the studies carried out by Dr Neil Cherry and Dr Gerard J Hyland, to link telecommunications masts to disturbed sleep patterns, brain activity and various cancers.
WHO refers to a 1997 study that identified the increase of lymphoma in genetically engineered mice that were exposed to radio frequency fields. The independent expert group on mobile phones (IEGMP), which produced the Stewart Report, concurs with WHO by saying that the present evidence for the safety of phones and their mast units is insufficient. The group says:
"We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."
In the light of that expert advice, I urge the Assembly to be especially stringent when dealing with mobile phone coverage. A spate of applications in my area has held no truck with local people. One company had the audacity to propose a site in the middle of my home town of Castlewellan. Not only would it have been sited in the middle of shops, businesses and local crèches, and en route to the schools in the town, but it would have been in a conservation area. That proposal was incredible.
Another attempt to erect a mast in Newcastle was carried out in the middle of the night, as the company knew only too well that the local people were against it. The company did that after promising residents on the Castlewellan Road in Newcastle, after much intervention, that it would withdraw the application. The base of the mast is still sited on the road; it is possible that BT Cellnet is waiting for the opposition to abate. I assure it that it will have a long wait. However, in the meantime, the base remains an invitation to any child who wants to use it as a leg-up on to the high wall against which it is built. If a child were injured, I wonder who would pay the compensation.
Telecommunications companies can freely erect masts under prior approval notice without getting full planning permission. The spate of applications is the result of mobile phone companies trying their best to erect masts before new legislation is introduced. According to the Minister of the Environment, the aim of the legislation is to strengthen public opinion in the decision-making process. However, will the forthcoming legislation only give the public more of an opportunity to object? Is the Department putting the onus on the public to object and to take responsibility? That will mean that it is up to local groups to oppose such masts. Therefore, what happens in smaller villages that have fewer people to organise a successful opposition campaign?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to such an important debate. I welcome the motion. All Members receive regular representations about masts being located in inappropriate places.
In their capacities either as MLAs or as members of local authorities, Members are receiving strong representations from concerned constituents. I welcome the Minister of the Environment’s earlier indication that planning procedures will be regulated and shaped into a proper and satisfactory form.
Many of those who have made representations to me are especially concerned about health issues. It is a matter of regret that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not present. Her attendance would have been appropriate, given her and her Department’s responsibility to ensure that the public have confidence in the Executive, and that constituents feel that their concerns are being adequately dealt with. I invite the Minister of Health to make an early statement on the issue. She could undertake a major new survey to establish once and for all the health risks that are of great concern to people throughout my constituency of Newry and Armagh, and throughout Northern Ireland in general.
I welcome the presence of the Minister of the Environment. I pay tribute to his commitment to reaching a fair and equitable settlement on the issue. Is he considering, or will he consider, my concern that the masts are being provided for commercial reasons by commercial companies? In the cases of all the applications of which I am aware, it is clear that the masts are required to provide not only coverage for mobile phone users, but coverage that many of the leading telecommunications companies will sell as a commercial interest. That leads to a concentration in certain areas of not only applications, but sites and equipment, and that is a matter for concern.
It is one matter for the Government, as part of their overall policy, to wish to extend national coverage for mobile phones, but it is another matter when such action has a negative effect on the health of people who live in the affected areas.
I am grateful to the Minister of the Environment for listening to ongoing representations on the masts on a couple of sites outside Newry. I hope that he and the Department of the Environment can make progress on the matter of moving the Jerrettspass mast to an appropriate location. Moreover, I hope that the Department will take on board the concerns that many people in the Newry area have about the concentration of masts there.
We must consider the practical outworking of the motion. It concerns sentiments with which we all sympathise. I shall be interested to hear the Minister of the Environment’s reply. However, I shall be especially interested to hear the response of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, whose duty it was to be in the House to respond to the health concerns that Members are expressing on behalf of their constituents.

Mr Speaker: I wish to draw a matter to the Member’s attention. He must not be familiar with our procedure. It is not possible for two Ministers to make winding-up speeches in a debate. It is possible for two Ministers to speak, but one of them would simply be speaking as another Member and would not have the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on behalf of the Executive. The reason for that ruling is that it is important for the House to receive the considered response of the Executive. Without the ruling, two Ministers could potentially give different responses, which is not helpful to the House.
Although more than one Minister may be present, it is appropriate for only one Minister to respond. On this occasion I understand that the Minister of the Environment will be making the response. I say that for the clarity of the House. In order that Members are clear: even if the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety were here, she would not be able to respond as a Minister, and she would not be able to give a winding-up speech in the debate, save if the Minister of the Environment were not participating. I am just making that point for the record.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I am aware of the procedure of the House in this respect. The point that I was trying to make is that it would be helpful for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to be in a position to listen to the representations, particularly on the health concerns that Members will undoubtedly raise as part of this important debate.

Mr Speaker: I understand that, but I was listening quite carefully to the Member and I think he said: "to reply to the concerns" — hence my intervention.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful to you for listening carefully, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I always listen carefully to all Members, however much a strain that may be.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Not wishing to add to your burden, I will quickly get to the point.
I welcome and support the motion. Most Members will recognise very readily that telecommunications technology is essential to ensure that our economy is capable of competing in the global market. This technology will be a key element in ensuring that we establish a level playing field throughout the North, both in economic opportunity and development. Therefore, if we accept that the economy will either succeed and prosper or contract and fail depending on our ability to deploy this technological infrastructure, it is incumbent on us to address the clear problems that exist.
The public have considerable doubts and concerns, and those are based on significant, empirical evidence. However, in some instances, the concerns are based on lack of clarity, information, and reassurance, and we cannot, and must not, ignore them. Therefore, although I support the motion to implement the Stewart recommendations, including the exclusion zone around buildings — particularly housing, schools, and hospitals, which is an important part of the motion — in the context of the Minister’s recent announcement on subjecting the deployment of this infrastructure to the full planning process, we also need to be reassured that the Minister will take powers not just to monitor the extent of mast-sharing, but to introduce an element of compulsion to ensure that we minimise the proliferation of masts.
I hope that the Minister will consider and respond to a second point; it relates to serious concerns about the implications for health. I ask the Minister to consider establishing — as a condition of planning permission — a device that has been used traditionally in planning to ensure compliance with environmental concerns and other issues that pertain directly to planning. I do not wish to place any further disadvantage on the economic activity or development of this technology, but it is important that, as a planning condition, monitoring procedures financed by the industry, which will provide full information on emissions on an ongoing basis, are made available. That is the only way that we can overcome the public’s reservations about the new technology. If it is necessary, the industry should be prepared to consider how to allay concerns and demonstrate that consideration in an open and participative way. I am certain that local communities would be prepared to be part of the monitoring process where such technology is deployed within their regions. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Speaker: We have arrived at the moment of interruption. The debate is suspended and will be resumed after the statement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel, which will follow Oral Answers to Questions.
The debate stood suspended.

Education

Question 9, in the name of Mr McElduff, has been withdrawn. Question 10, in the name of Dr O’Hagan, has been withdrawn because it was responded to through the Minister of Education’s statement earlier today.

Special Needs Requirements

1. asked the Minister of Education how he proposes to satisfy special needs requirements for children, given that the number of special needs cases far exceeds the places available.
(AQO1173/01)


This is the first time that I have seen Annie Courtney since her accident; I am pleased that she is back in the Assembly, and I hope that she is keeping well.
Under special education legislation, education and library boards have a duty to arrange that the special education provision, indicated in a statement of special educational needs, be made for children. The boards may place special education needs pupils in mainstream schools where they are satisfied that the placement will meet the children’s needs, without detriment to other children’s education and with regard to the efficient use of resources. When special education needs children attend a mainstream school, the board of governors must use its best endeavours to ensure that the special education provision required is given.
The incidence of children with statements of special educational needs has risen over the past four years, but I am not aware that the number of special needs cases far exceeds the places available. There are a small number of children whose needs cannot immediately be met in the educational setting named in the statement. However, the needs of children unable to obtain places are catered for through the provision of classroom assistants; additional support by peripatetic teachers in mainstream schools; outreach support; and, in a small number of cases, home tuition.


I thank the Minister for his good wishes; they are appreciated. I was probably thinking more about my constituency when I worded the question. As the Minister will be aware, the closure of Templemore Secondary School in Derry has been proposed. It has a high percentage of special needs cases. They are currently in mainstream schooling. How does the Minister propose to deal with that added burden, and will he make a statement to the House on this problem shortly?


The situation at Templemore Secondary School has been controversial. As Minister of Education, I can only respond to a development proposal on behalf of the Western Education and Library Board. The board said at its most recent meeting that it intends to issue such a development proposal to my Department, and, as Minister of Education, I will have to give that due consideration. However, there will be opportunity for everyone who is concerned about the situation at Templemore to make submissions to me.

Departmental Correspondence (Townland Names)

2. asked the Minister of Education what proactive steps he has taken to ensure that townland names are used in departmental correspondence.
(AQO1158/01)


I recognise the importance of townland names as part of our local heritage. In replying to correspondence, my Department will use townland names where correspondents have included them in their addresses.


I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. Townland names are a precious part of our heritage. Unfortunately, during the early 1970s the new postal arrangements decimated many townland names. Fortunately, the Assembly voted to resurrect our heritage on postal addresses. I am disappointed to hear the Minister saying that he will go as far as he can, depending on the incoming correspondence. The Assembly voted that all Departments should initiate the use of townland names. That could be quite easily achieved through the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, which is set up to provide such information. I plead with the Minister to tell his Department to issue townland names for all our rural communities.


My Department has no means to source accurate townland names easily for all addresses. I understand that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is supporting work to preserve and promote the use of place names. Mr McCarthy may wish to seek further details from Minister McGimpsey.
I appreciate that there has been a long-running campaign for the revival of the use of townland names. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is funding two projects to preserve and promote the use of place names: the common address file project, which aims to establish a standardised form of address to be adopted by all Government Departments and the private sector; and the place names project at Queen’s University Belfast, which researches the origins and meanings of place names.
I am sympathetic to Mr McCarthy’s point. It is an issue for all Departments that everyone should be concerned about. My mother comes from an area of County Donegal where there are many very beautiful place names such as Meenaharnish, Effishabreda, Crockahenny, Meentahalla and Glentogher. Those names are important to the people who live there, and the area where my mother comes from — Middle Illies — is used all the time in correspondence. I wrote to my uncle recently and I addressed the letter to John Doherty, Middle Illies, Ballymagan, County Donegal.

Teacher Redundancies

3. asked the Minister of Education what steps he intends to take to protect the jobs of teachers facing redundancy.
(AQO1147/01)


The general uplift in recurrent spending in schools in 2002-03 is 4·9%, which in overall terms is more than enough to meet general pay and price increases. Decisions on redundancies are a matter for individual boards of governors, in the light of their individual school circumstances, especially changes in enrolment.
If, however, a board of governors considers it necessary to make a teacher redundant, it may wish to consider discussing the financial position of the school with its education and library board, which will consider what additional assistance it can give in the context of its local management of schools (LMS) arrangements. It must have regard to its responsibilities towards other schools in the area. I will continue to press for additional resources for our schools at every opportunity.


Is the Minister aware that the pupil to teacher ratios in the North Eastern Education and Library Board, which covers part of my constituency, are the worst of the five area boards? At a time when education resources must be directed at raising standards in the classroom, is the Minister satisfied that we are not losing valuable teaching expertise and experience through redundancies?


Redundancies can result from causes other than budget cuts and falling enrolments, such as organisational changes in a school and changes to the curriculum. However, individual circumstances may mean that some schools, especially those with falling enrolments, will have difficult decisions to make to ensure that they live within their budget.
Boards must continue to be proactive in ensuring that schools’ spending plans are realistic and monitored closely to ensure that deficits do not accumulate and become increasingly difficult to recover.
With regard to the North Eastern Education and Library Board, the Department distributes funding for controlled and maintained schools through the education and library boards, and boards have full, delegated authority to allocate budgets to individual schools. Although boards are aware of the Department’s policy on giving priority to schools’ delegated budgets, some may find it necessary to award a lesser uplift to schools because of pressure on budgets held centrally for specific services. Schools are expected to contain expenditure within their available budget.


Will the Minister confirm that the North Eastern Education and Library Board is the most underfunded board in Northern Ireland, and that 100 teacher redundancies are pending? They are victims of that underfunding. Does he agree that that underfunding is gross discrimination against those teachers and the pupils served by that area, which is the largest Protestant area in Northern Ireland? Will he do something about it?


Here we go again, sectarianising the education debate. The budget available to fund core board services has been distributed fully on the basis of a methodology that reflects relative needs across the education and library boards. When funding is allocated to each education and library board, the Department stresses that boards should continue to give priority to school- delegated budgets, although it recognises that each board must set realistic figures for school-related central budgets, some of which, I understand, are suffering pressures in the North Eastern Education and Library Board area.


Is the Minister aware that the present funding arrangements for the North Eastern Education and Library Board disadvantages it to the point where there is the real possibility of 75 redundancies in the foreseeable future? Does the Minister agree that a simple explanation of the unfairness is the fact that the North Eastern Education and Library Board has 21% of the Province’s pupils, but only 15% of the pupils who are entitled to free school meals? If he is aware of that underfunding, what measures does he propose to introduce to avoid those 75 redundancies being made?


I refer the Member to the answer that I have just given. I have explained that the budget available to fund core board services has been distributed fully on the basis of a methodology that reflects relative needs across the education and library boards. Those are issues that all education and library boards must deal with. There is no question of one board’s being given preferential treatment over another. All boards must live with the established methodology, and the responsibility to deal with that lies with the boards.
I am aware that there have been discussions about this matter between Members and the North Eastern Education and Library Board. The Department monitors the situation constantly with regard to the difficulties experienced by education and library boards, and will continue to do that in co-operation with the boards.

Burns Report

4. asked the Minister of Education what assessment he can make in relation to the consultation process of the Burns Report.
(AQO1174/01)


Consultation is ongoing and will last until 28 June 2002. My Department is using a variety of methods to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the debate. A detailed response booklet will be issued at the end of this month to schools, further education colleges, community groups and training organisations to facilitate consideration of the key issues and to help to structure responses.
In late May, my Department will issue a household response form to every household that will provide information about the review and it will seek the views of the public on the key issues. A household survey is planned to gather more in-depth views from the public. The Department is also considering how best to garner the views of young people. A summary analysis of the responses received will be published around the end of September.
I am engaged in a series of meetings involving the key players in our education system. I am keen to listen to suggestions, build consensus and stimulate discussion of the issues during the consultation period. I must emphasise that no decisions on future arrangements have been taken. I want to hear views on the Burns proposals, modifications to those proposals or alternative arrangements.


Does the Minister accept that his press releases condemning the use of the 11-plus and academic selection, which do not provide ideas on how children should be allocated to oversubscribed schools, do not help the debate on the review of post-primary education?


It is important that we focus on the task at hand. The weaknesses of the current arrangements are unacceptable and must be addressed. Save the Children, the Gallagher and Smith Report and Prof Gardiner have outlined those weaknesses. An on-the-record statement from the Committee for Education states that change is both necessary and appropriate.
There is a need for change, and it is widely accepted that the status quo is not an option. On several occasions, I have pointed out the need to address academic selection. The 11-plus has been widely debated, and, as a result of that debate, no one advocates its continuation. Anyone who wishes to make other suggestions about how we test children at the age of 10 or 11 must be aware that it is wrong to ask any Department of Education, or me as Minister of Education, to become involved in a process that would perpetuate the weaknesses that the 11-plus showed up.
The debate must be an informed one, and measures such as the video and household response forms contribute to people’s knowledge. We must ensure that those who do not benefit from the current system can make their views known. Educational issues must be considered above party political perspectives. I stress again that no decisions have been made on the Burns proposals or on any other issues. I have invited comments on the Burns proposals as they stand, and variations and modifications to the Burns proposals or alternative arrangements.
In respect of the other issues that the Member raised, the Department of Education is open to ideas and suggestions on issues such as the criteria for transfer from primary schools to post-primary schools. Burns made proposals on those issues, but we are not restricted to that analysis. Our minds are open about all of that. I am satisfied that the consultation has been properly handled, and I refute claims of bias. I issued press statements recently that reflected the views expressed to me in a series of meetings. I am undertaking, with keen interest, to listen to those views and to help to stimulate and inform the debate.


What is the Minister’s reaction to the resignation of the chairperson of the Governing Bodies Association (GBA), and to the chairperson’s statement in a morning newspaper today that he resigned because Catholic bishops were unduly influenced by the educational establishment’s politically correct views? The Minister has sought today — and in the consultation that has been sent out — to mislead the public by talking about schools that fail in Northern Ireland. Inspectors have not identified any of these failed schools. The Minister says that schools have failed youngsters, but in a reply to a Member less than a month ago, he stated that fewer people in Northern Ireland left school with no qualifications in the past six years than in England, Scotland or Wales.


I will not make any response to the resignation of the chairperson of the GBA. That is a matter between the chairperson of the GBA and the Catholic bishops. The Member must recognise that there are many myths in this area, one of which claims that we have a world-class education system that is the best in these islands. However, almost a quarter of our adult workforce is at the lowest level of literacy. Scotland has as many pupils achieving five and more GCSEs at grades A to C, and it has more young people entering higher education. England has more pupils achieving five GCSE passes at grades A to G.
A second myth is that academic selection provides a ladder to success for working class and disadvantaged children. However, currently only 8% of pupils in grammar schools are from low-income families, and in the Shankill less than 2% of pupils gained a grammar school place.
Who is speaking on behalf of those children?


Order.


Given some DUP Members’ silence on the issue, perhaps I am a better bet for the children of the Shankill Road than some of its representatives. [Interruption].


Order.


Disadvantaged pupils are only half as likely to achieve five good GCSEs as other children.
The third myth is that a grammar school education is needed to get into university and to get a good job. Around half of the students at the University of Ulster, and many at Queen’s University, did not take the traditional A-level route. That is food for thought.


Does the Minister share my concern about the amount of available legislative time left to the Assembly? Will he prepare a timescale for dealing with any legislative consequences that arise from the Burns Report, so that the legislation will not conveniently, or inconveniently, run into the sand?


It is vital that the consultation period runs its course. That consultation will close on 28 June, and my Department will then spend time — not too long I hope — analysing the results. Regardless of the opinions expressed by the DUP today, I recognise that I have the important job of building a consensus on the matter. It is my passionate wish to build that consensus with the more positive and constructive Assembly parties, of which there are many: the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Women’s Coalition, the Alliance Party and the PUP. Those parties have a keen interest in children’s education. As the Minister of Education, my next responsibility will be to present my ideas and proposals on how we should move forward. When a consensus is achieved, the Executive can decide how to proceed legislatively.

GCSE Engineering

5. asked the Minister of Education what steps he has taken to involve his Colleague, the Minister for Employment and Learning, in discussions with further education colleges and institutes to assist schools in upgrading their delivery of engineering and technology subjects in the light of the new GCSE examination in engineering.
(AQO1156/01)


The delivery of the new vocational GCSE in engineering does not depend on intervention by the further education sector. However, one cannot doubt the positive impact of teaching vocational subjects in schools, which can be brought to bear by drawing on the experience of the further education institutions, for which my Colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning is responsible.


Does the Minister agree that the wasteful duplication of resources within and between Departments must be rooted out? Will he take affirmative action based upon specialist investigations, and issue circulars to schools instructing them actively to seek partnerships with local further education colleges for the better delivery of engineering and technology at GCSE level, rather than giving limp, unspecified encouragement to schools and colleges to work together?


The relationship between further education colleges and schools on the issue is based on supply and demand. Schools may use their delegated budgets to buy in the necessary expertise to ensure that special subjects such as engineering are taught effectively.

Children from North Belfast (Educational Attainment)

6. asked the Minister of Education to detail the steps that he is taking to ensure that the educational experience and attainment of children from north Belfast does not suffer from the ongoing and recurring sectarian conflict in the area.
(AQO1176/01)


The schools in north Belfast have been operating under the most exceptional circumstances since last June and the onset of the protests at Holy Cross Girls’ Primary School. It is a tribute to the commitment and professionalism of teaching staff there that their pupils continue to have a normal education in such difficult circumstances. Members will know from my announcements on 17 December 2001 and 27 March 2002 of the extent to which the Executive and my Department have responded to the needs of the worst affected schools in north Belfast. To date, a total of almost £3 million has been allocated for specific measures to deal with the problems identified by the schools.
On many occasions, I have said that a priority for my Department is to ensure that all children have access to high-quality education provision in a safe and secure learning environment. To achieve that goal, a long-term solution to the problems in the area must be found. My Department therefore plays an active role in the interdepartmental liaison group for north Belfast and provides information and advice to the North Belfast Community Action Project. I met that group this morning. Mainstream programmes that target social disadvantage and underachievement will continue to be a priority in the main education programme.


Will the Minister agree, and will he reiterate, that our schools should be left in peace to get on with the job of the education of children, bearing in mind that the Minister has put in as much money and effort as possible? That effort and money should not be necessary — that was given in special circumstances. The core of the matter is that schools should be neutral and free from sectarian attack.


I have consistently said that schools should be havens and that protests at, or attacks on, schools are totally unacceptable. The difficulty in north Belfast is a community issue in which local schoolchildren have unfortunately become embroiled. I have repeatedly urged politicians and community leaders, especially those who represent the local area, to engage in dialogue and work to reach an accommodation. It is only in that way that a resolution to the problem will be found and a normal educational environment restored.
As long as the situation continues, my officials and I will continue to monitor the problem and to provide support in all matters relating to the educational well-being of the children. My Department will continue to take an active role in the interdepartmental liaison group for north Belfast and to provide information and advice to the North Belfast Community Action Project.
The plight of the schoolchildren of north Belfast can be resolved through community dialogue — a willingness for all sides to come together and face up to their fears, concerns and perceptions. I ask people in north Belfast to look at the rest of the place and see people getting on with their lives. There are still some problems and difficulties, but people in north Belfast must consider what is happening elsewhere and be determined to live and work together to end the misery, which inflicts great hardship not just on themselves, but on their children.


If the Minister were to check the records for the past 30 years, he would see the amount of money that has been spent on Protestant kids from the Belfast Boys’ Model School who were attacked. What criteria did he use to give money to these schools? Does the money that Mr Gerry Kelly referred to include the money used to fund police protection for the Protestant children attending Ballygolan and Cliftonville Primary Schools, the Belfast Boys’ Model School and other schools across north Belfast?


The situation in north Belfast is exceptional and requires a response to meet the circumstances. The education and library boards will continue to provide support services to all schools in their respective areas that require assistance. I am fully aware of the problems being faced by schools, not only in north Belfast, but also in other areas. My Department and the relevant education authorities will continue to monitor closely the situations as they arise. Where difficulties present themselves, appropriate steps will be taken to ensure the safety and well-being of pupils and the quality of the education they receive.
When I announced that my Department would be funding an extension of the Executive’s support package to include a further 13 primary schools in the north Belfast area, I said that we had been faced with difficult decisions due to limited funding. After consultation with our education partners it was decided that the primary schools should be the main focus. However, the youth initiative is important, and all secondary schools in the area could benefit from participation in such a scheme. My Department will therefore be bidding at the earliest opportunity for additional funds to extend the programme to all secondary schools in north Belfast.


I am tempted to ask whether the funding includes the Abbots Cross, Whitehouse, and Rathcoole Primary Schools and, if not, why not.
Can the Minister tell me what assessment has been made of the effects of conflict on educational experience and attainment, not only in north Belfast but also in areas such as west Tyrone, which, as he knows, has suffered more than most from decades of Republican terrorist activity? Can he assure the Assembly that the military wing of Sinn Féin is not preparing to return to conflict?


As someone who has been at the heart of the peace process during the past 10 years —


Order. I must interrupt the Minister and ask him to respond in writing, as we have run out of time.


The Member was saved by the Speaker.


Order.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Question 11, standing in the name of Mr Mick Murphy, has been transferred to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and questions 8, 12, 16 and 17, standing in the names of Ms McWilliams, Dr Birnie, Mr McElduff and Mr Gallagher, respectively, have all been withdrawn and will receive written answers.

Availability of Incontinence Sheets

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps she will take against hospital trusts who have withdrawn the availability of incontinence sheets, thereby reducing the dignity of bedridden patients.
(AQO1151/01)


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Deirtear liom gur aistarraing dhá iontaobhas ospidéil, Green Park agus an tIúr agus an Mhorn braillíní neamhchoinneáltachta agus nach mbíonn siad in úsáid de ghnáth níos mó ag iontaobhais ar chúiseanna fheabhas caighdeáin. Tá éagsúlacht táirgí neamhchoinneálachta níos oiriúnaí ar nós pardóg agus brístíní ar fáil anois, a sholáthraíonn cosaint, compard agus dínit níos mó don duine aonair.
I am advised that incontinence sheets have been withdrawn by two hospital trusts — Green Park and Newry and Mourne — and are no longer routinely used by most trusts on quality improvement grounds. More appropriate incontinence products, such as pads and pants, are now available, and those provide greater protection, comfort and dignity for the individual.


Does the Minister agree that personal hygiene is a basic human right, particularly for people — young or old — who are confined to bed? Will she ensure that the suffering of those people is not added to by their constantly having to plead for disposable sheets of a size and number appropriate to their needs? Will she assure me that I will never again hear reports of disposable sheets being dried on radiators because fresh ones are restricted, unavailable in the appropriate size, or totally unavailable, as she has just said?


I hope that the Member has not misunderstood my answer. I said clearly that a range of incontinence products, which provide greater protection and comfort, and which may be more appropriate to the needs of the patient, is available. Such products may also provide other benefits, such as the prevention of pressure sores. I am advised that incontinence sheets have been withdrawn by two trusts, and I understand that that policy is continually reviewed. I stress that, in other trusts, they are no longer routinely used on quality improvement grounds.
Having said that, the needs of individual patients are determined case by case. The appropriate incontinence products are issued following a full assessment and the development of an appropriate treatment plan. If the Member wishes to draw my attention to a particular case, he may wish to write to me about it.

Foyle Community HSS Trust: Diabetes Care Team

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline (a) if there is a psychologist employed in the diabetes care team for the Foyle Community HSS Trust; and (b) any steps she will take, if necessary, to address this situation.
(AQO1148/01)


Tá an fhoireann cúraim diaibéitis do limistéar an Fheabhail comhdhéanta d’fhoireann ó Iontaobhas Phobal an Fheabhail agus Iontaobhas Ospidéal Alt na nGealbhan. I láthair na huaire, níl aon síceolaí tiomanta d’fhoireann cúraim diaibéitis i limistéar an Fheabhail — tá teacht ag daoine le diaibéiteas ar thacaíocht síceolaíochta trí chúram príomhúil agus seirbhísí meabhairshláinte speisialtóra.
The diabetes team for the Foyle area is comprised of staff from Foyle Community HSS Trust and Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust. At present, no psychologist is dedicated to the diabetes care team in the Foyle area. Psychological support is accessible to people with diabetes through primary care and specialist mental health services.
The Western Health and Social Services Board is examining its priority developments for 2002-03 and hopes to be able to develop dedicated clinical psychology care for diabetics in Altnagelvin Hospital. However, that will depend on finalising investment plans and the availability of funding.


I am glad that that problem will be remedied in the near future. However, the consultant in charge is concerned that there is no psychologist at present. Diabetes is a killer. Many young and elderly people are affected. Some people go blind, and they and their families find it difficult to cope. They need psychological support immediately. I want the Minister to address that as soon as possible. I have written to the Western Health and Social Services Board. I doubt that there will be enough money in the current spending plans to make a psychologist available specifically to the diabetes care team.


Clinical psychology support is accessible to people with diabetes in all board areas through primary care and specialist mental health services. As I have said, the Western Board is currently examining its priority developments for 2002-03. When the plan is finalised and the amount of money available has also been analysed against the plan, the possibilities will become clear.
In relation to increasing the number of psychologists in order to have the necessary psychology input into different services, training at Queen’s University Belfast involves a three-year course. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has traditionally provided funding to support an annual intake of six people. In the past two years I have allocated additional funds for education and training that have enabled the intake to be increased to nine places. The Department understands the importance of making psychologists available through primary care, mental health services or dedicated input such as that which the Western Health and Social Services Board is examining at present.


Can the Minister inform the House of the current level of expenditure on diabetes research, bearing in mind that the number of patients with the disease is on the increase?


Given the amount and the wide variety of work that has been taken on board — including that of the joint task force that has been set up by the Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST) and Diabetes UK, which includes representatives from the Department — it is not possible for me to provide an accurate figure today. However, I will write to the Member with it.

Digital Hearing Aids

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to give an update on her plans to introduce digital hearing aids.
(AQO1183/01)


Tá rún daingean agam áiseanna éisteachta digiteacha a thabhairt isteach a luaithe a bhíonn maoiniú ar fáil dóibh.
Ós rud é go bhfuil an buiséad forbartha atá ar fáil do sheirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta teoranta agus go bhfuil brú leanúnach ar fud speictream iomlán na seirbhísí, ní féidir leithdháileadh a dhéanamh ag an tráth seo ar an mhaoiniú breise athfhillteach atá de dhíth le háiseanna éisteachta digiteacha a thabhairt isteach go háitiúil.
I am committed to introducing digital hearing aids as soon as funding permits. Given the limited development budget available to health and social services and the continuing pressures across the whole spectrum of services, it is not possible to allocate the additional recurrent funding that is required to introduce digital hearing aids locally at present. An Executive programme fund bid for that purpose was unsuccessful last year. However, the Department will continue to explore all possible funding avenues.


Given that there are up to 100,000 hearing aid users in Northern Ireland, and that 70% of them could benefit from digital hearing aids, can the Minister confirm that a programme to introduce digital hearing aids here would cost £1·2 million? How does that figure compare to the amount of money that has already been spent on analogue hearing aids, which are of a bad standard? Digital hearing aids are better value for money in the long term.


I do not agree that analogue hearing aids are of a bad standard. I want digital hearing aids to be introduced, but that involves their assessment and fitting, which is a complex process requiring specialist equipment. Additional audiologists would have to be recruited to support provision.
It is estimated that provision of digital hearing aids to new users alone would cost around £1 million annually. Set-up costs, covering equipment, training and accommodation, would amount to around £300,000 each year. Roll-out of provision to existing users would take about eight years and cost a further £2 million each year. Set-up costs would be around £600,000. Therefore, in net terms, it is estimated that the additional cost of provision would be £750,000 a year to new users and £1·5 million a year to existing users over the roll-out period.


I have asked the Minister a series of questions on the costs of digital hearing aids. The answers have shown that the gap between the comparative costs of analogue and digital hearing aids has closed considerably. Has the Minister taken that into consideration? When digital hearing aids are introduced, will the Minister give an assurance that hospital departments will receive proper resourcing to ensure that the necessary internal infrastructure is in place to enable proper assessment and provision?


I have answered most of that already. I am aware that the gap in the costs of the aids themselves has closed considerably, as I said in answer to Ms Lewsley. However, assessment and fitting of digital hearing aids is more complex and requires additional audiologists, and that maintains a considerable gap in costs. The figures that I quoted are up to date.
As regards implementation costs, the additional 12 audiologists that are needed to support provision to new users alone would cost an extra £300,000 a year. An additional 24 audiologists to support provision to new and existing users would cost an extra £600,000 a year. The remainder of the implementation costs would cover the additional cost of the digital hearing aids, the average cost of which is estimated at £150 each — about £100 more than the current average cost of an analogue hearing aid.
The Department is examining the extra costs involved in the programme and looking specifically at what it would mean for the service — not merely for the aids themselves — to ensure that when they are introduced, it is for the maximum benefit of service users. I am committed to introducing them as soon as the money can be found.


Question 4 is in the name of Mr Molloy, but he is not in his place. I call Mr McCarthy.

Departmental Correspondence (Townland Names)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail her policy on the use of townland names in departmental correspondence.
(AQO1159/01)


Tacaím go hiomlán le húsáid a bhaint as ainmneacha bailte fearainn i gcaomhnú ár n-oidhreachta áitiúla, agus moltar don fhoireann i mo Roinn úsáid a bhaint as ainmneacha bailte fearainn agus iad ag freagairt do chomhfhreagras nuair a bhíonn na bailte fearainn curtha isteach ag comhfhreagraithe ina seoltaí.
I fully support the use of townland names in preserving our local heritage. Staff in my Department are encouraged to use townland names in replying to correspondence where correspondents have included them in their addresses.


Once again, I must express some disappointment with that response, which was similar to that of the Minister of Education. The Assembly took a clear decision some time ago that all Departments would use townland names.
As I said earlier, the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland has each townland name at its fingertips. We talk about so-called joined-up government. There does not seem to be much evidence of joined-up government in either the Department of Education or the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is time that the Executive carried out the wishes of the Assembly. Will the Minister go to the Ordnance Survey and get the information out to rural constituents?


A common address file project involving the Central Information Technology Unit is under way to establish a definitive index of addresses for use throughout the public and private sectors. One aim of the project is to ensure that the new system will include townland names for every address. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is supporting work to preserve and promote the use of place names.
As with the Department of Education, my Department has no means by which it could, on its own initiative, easily and accurately source townland names to include in its replies. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has input into common address file project. I expect that the Department will be allowed to have that file on its records and to install the automated systems.

Eastern Health and Social Services Board: Infertility Treatment Waiting Times

6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail the waiting time for patients awaiting infertility treatment in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board area and to make a statement.
(AQO1160/01)


Tá réimse cóireálacha ar fáil do neamhthorthúlacht, lena n-áirítear cóireáil drugaí, máinliacht, inseamhnú saorga agus teicnící chúnamh ginte ar nós IVF. Beidh roinnt de na hothair atá ag feitheamh le cóireáil ar liostaí feithimh ginearálta, mar shampla gínéiceolaíocht agus ní féidir iad sin a dheighilt ó thaobh fáthmheas/faidhbe de.
Infertility treatment includes drugs, surgery, artificial insemination and assisted conception techniques such as IVF. Some patients await treatment on general waiting lists — for example, in gynaecology — and it is not possible to disaggregate those by diagnosis or problem.
Waiting lists have been established for the interim fertility service that commenced on 17 December 2001. It is not possible to give waiting times for those lists. Recent figures indicate that 299 local couples have been assessed as eligible for Health Service treatment and they await that at the regional fertility centre of the Royal Group of Hospitals. Every effort is being made to provide treatment as quickly as possible for those waiting.


I tabled this question after many patients approached me about waiting times. I hope that the Minister agrees that this sensitive treatment should not be unnecessarily delayed, because that would further upset patients.


I agree that there should be no unnecessary delay. That is why I set up an interim service, rather than wait until all the work had been done to put the full service in place. I intend to publish a consultation document on subfertility services by the summer. The outcome of the consultation will inform the provision of a permanent service, but I implemented the interim service because I knew that to set up a permanent service would take time, and I was anxious that people in such sensitive circumstances should not have to wait.

Special Schools: Provision of Nurses

7. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make a statement on the provision of nurses in special schools.
(AQO1162/01)


Soláthraíonn iontaobhais seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta éagsúlacht tacaíochta altranais do scoileanna speisialta. San áireamh sa réimse soláthar, tá altraí tiomanta ag freastal ar scoileanna i rith am téarma, tacaíocht ó altraí péidiatracha pobail, altraí do mhíchumais foghlama agus altraí ceantair, agus oiliúint arna sholáthar ag foireann altranais do mhúinteoirí agus do fhreastalaithe seomra ranga le cóireálacha agus drugaí a riaradh.
Health and social services trusts provide a variety of nursing support to special schools. Provision includes dedicated nurses who attend individual schools during term time, support from community, paediatric, learning disability and district nurses, and training by nursing staff of teachers and classroom attendants to administer treatment and drugs.
The report of the review of nursing services to children in special schools that was commissioned by the Department and issued to health and social services boards in 2000 did not recommend a dedicated nurse for each special school. Instead, it recommended that NVQ- trained carers with nursing support could meet the healthcare needs of children with special needs.


To what extent do the Minister and her Department co-operate with the Minister of Education and his Department on the provision of such needs?


There is co-operation, co-ordination and discussion between officials from the two Departments, and between local health and social services board representatives and education and library board representatives. However, it is for local health and social services trusts to determine the nursing support that is required by children with special needs and to decide how that should be provided, taking into account the available resources. Given the increase in numbers, health and social services boards, together with colleagues from education and library boards, are reviewing the nursing and other support required and the ways in which that might be provided.

Breastfeeding Mothers

9. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to provide data on the proportion of mothers who choose to breastfeed their babies.
(AQO1186/01)


Léiríonn na torthaí tosaigh ó bheathú naíonán 2000 gur tharla méadú suntasach anseo ar mháithreacha a thug an chíoch dá leanbh idir 1995 agus 2000. Mhéadaigh an líon sin ó 45% i 1995 go dtí 54% i 2000. I measc na mban a bhí ina máithreacha den chéad uair in aois 25 go 29 bliana, mhéadaigh an beathú cíche ó 60% i 1995 go 69% i 2000.
Preliminary results from the 2000 infant feeding survey show that between 1995 and 2000 there was a significant increase in breastfeeding here — from 45% in 1995 to 54% in 2000. Among first-time mothers aged 25 to 29, breastfeeding increased from 60% in 1995 to 69% in 2000. Although I am pleased with those results, we could do better, especially in lower socio-economic groups. For that reason, we recently appointed a breastfeeding co-ordinator to further promote breastfeeding here.


I welcome the Minister’s answer, especially her remarks about lower socio-economic groups. It is relevant that infants who are breastfed are less prone to allergies and the diseases to which infants are susceptible. Does the Minister intend to either promote or advertise the advantages of breastfeeding?


Several activities will be given impetus by the breastfeeding co-ordinator’s appointment. Two hospitals and one community trust here have achieved World Health Organisation (WHO) baby-friendly status, which means that they satisfied the rigid criteria of WHO and UNICEF for actively implementing best practice in promoting breastfeeding. The appointment of the breastfeeding co-ordinator will give their work much greater impetus. In particular, the breastfeeding co-ordinator will develop a network of key individuals from boards and trusts, voluntary and community groups, and educational establishments in order to achieve the objectives of the strategy. I am delighted to say that Micheál Martin TD, the Minister for Health and Children in the South, has appointed the same co-ordinator to that Department’s committee on breastfeeding. The co-ordinator’s being a member of that committee provides an excellent opportunity to share ideas, to develop good practice on an all-island basis and to see what further work we can do to get the important message across.

Overcapacity in Adult Centres

10. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps she has taken to address the overcapacity in adult centres.
(AQO1170/01)


Éilíonn mo thosaíochtaí do ghníomhaíocht 2002-03 go leanfaidh na hiontaobhais agus na boird sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta de bheith ag leathnú chúram lae agus cúram faoisimh do dhaoine faoi mhíchumas foghlama. Beidh cuid den mhaoiniú breise a leithdháil mé ar na boird le seirbhísí pobail a fhorbairt i 2002-03 ar fáil chun na críche seo.
Is faoi na hiontaobhais agus na boird sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta atá sé a chinntiú go mbíonn an réimse agus an méid seirbhísí chúram lae ann, lena n-áirítear áiteanna i lárionad lae do dhaoine fásta, le freastal ar an riachtanas áitiúil a aithníodh.
My priorities for action in 2002-03 require health and social services boards and trusts to continue to expand the provision of day care and respite care for people with a learning disability. Some of the additional funding that I have allocated to boards to develop community services in 2002-03 will be available for that purpose. It is for the health and social services boards and trusts to ensure that there is the range and volume of day care services, including places in adult day centres, to meet identified local need.


Some parents whose children attend Kilronan Special School in Mid Ulster have been informed that their children cannot be guaranteed places in local adult education centres when they move on. Does the Minister have proposals to deal with that? Has she discussed the problem with the Minister for Employment and Learning so that they can work in partnership to achieve a satisfactory outcome?


The Member may need to write to me with the details of that matter. The Northern Health and Social Services Board has reviewed its day care provision. Its plans to stimulate additional day care capacity include moving older service users to more age- appropriate settings. I am not sure whether that is what the Member is referring to. The board wishes to develop local small-scale projects with the voluntary sector that will offer alternatives to facility-based activities.

Community Care Packages

13. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in relation to her announcement of the creation of 1,000 new community care packages, what criteria are being used to allocate the distribution of the packages.
(AQO1187/01)


Tá mé ag súil go gcuirfidh na boird a moltaí mionsonraithe do bhaint amach a scair chaipitlíochta den sprioc 1,000 faoi mo bhráid go gairid. Áireofar ar na moltaí mionsonraithe sin pleananna le leanúint le hinfheistíocht a dhéanamh i seirbhísí pobail, ag baint úsáide as an réimse chuí scileanna SSSP, le tacaíocht a thabhairt do dhaoine i suímh sa phobal a éascaíonn filleadh ar an neamhspleáchas agus laghdú a dhéanamh ar an ghá le cúram baile fadtréimhseach cónaitheach agus altranais.
I expect boards to provide me shortly with detailed proposals for achieving their capitation share of the 1,000 community care packages. The proposals will include plans to continue investment in community services, using the appropriate range of health and social services skills to support people in community settings which facilitate a return to independence and reduce the need for long- term residential and nursing-home care. Boards and trusts are also required to look at the good practices in service provision, identified in the first report on the review of community care that I published today. The aim is to reduce inappropriate hospital admissions and to set targets for reducing the number of people who remain in hospital after they are found to be medically fit for discharge.


I welcome the Minister’s answer, and I acknowledge the fact that she has announced the review of community care today. Does she know what measures the boards will put in place to ensure that service users and their families are aware of the criteria they must meet to apply for a package?


From my knowledge of other work, I understand that one of our main aims is to make progress on the strategy for carers. That includes making carers aware of what provisions are available. Some of the good practice that is involved in the first stage of the community care review is concerned with ensuring that discussions take place when community care is being made available.
It is imperative that domiciliary care be one of the main planks of community care policy. I am aware that we must ensure that money is allocated to where it is most needed. The community care review has examined several projects, particularly those demonstrating innovation in the way that we deliver community care to older and more vulnerable people. We intend to take a further in-depth look at those projects in the second phase of the review so that the good practice may be replicated throughout the health and personal social services. Although the second phase of the review will take some time, I assure the Member that the work on good practice is ongoing.

Health Databases — All-Ireland Co-ordination

14. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps have been taken, or are planned to be taken, in relation to all-Ireland co-ordination of data collection for health databases.
(AQO1185/01)


Cé nach bhfuil aon chóras comhordaithe tiomsaithe sonraí ar bhonn uile-Éireann do bhunachar sonraí sláinte ann go fóill, bunaíodh dlúthnasc oibre idir eagraíochtaí éagsúla anseo agus sa Deisceart le tiomsú agus taifeadadh sonraí a thabhairt le chéile. Sampla amháin de sin is é obair na Clárlainne Ailse anseo agus obair na Clárlainne Náisiúnta Ailse i gCorcaigh i mbunachar sonraí staitisticí ailse uile-Éireann a chruthú.
Although there is not yet any systematic all-Ireland co-ordination of health data, close working links have been established between organisations here and in the South to harmonise the collection and recording of such information. For example, the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and the National Cancer Registry of Ireland, which is in Cork, are creating an all-Ireland database of cancer statistics.


The Minister said that there are no operational databases. Have there been moves to create databases relating to child abuse offenders, North and South?


Yes. The North/South Ministerial Council, in its education sectoral format, is dealing with that matter; therefore, it would be more appropriate to direct that question to the Minister of Education. There have been practical difficulties in creating other types of databases, due to differences in how data are defined and collected, and how services are organised, funded, and delivered. We will be examining all those issues.

Care of Residents in Nursing Homes

15. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the current position in discussions on the increase of contract prices for the care of residents in nursing homes.
(AQO1161/01)


Mar aitheantas ar an ardú ghéar i gcostais san earnáil chónaitheach agus tithe altranais, tá 3·6 mhilliún breise curtha ar fáil agam in éineacht leis an ghnáthardú bhliantúil le méadú a dhéanamh ar na táillí a íoctar ar áiteanna sna tithe seo.
In recognition of the steep increase in residential and nursing home costs, I provided a further £3·6 million on top of the normal annual uplift to increase the fees paid for places in those homes. Fees will increase this year by approximately 5·5%.

Finance and Personnel

Question 1, in the name of Mr McElduff, and question 9, in the name of Mr Gallagher, have been withdrawn and will receive written answers.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Ministerial Transport Costs

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail (a) the names of all private hire firms used by the Executive to supply ministerial limousines and transport for Ministers; and (b) the costs associated with the hire of such services and transport.
(AQO1191/01)


 Crown Chauffeur Drive, Belfast, and W&N Services, Bangor, provide official transport for Ministers. In the 12 months ending 28 February 2002, Crown Chauffeur Drive was paid £101,000 for the service, and W&N Services was paid £260,000.


The Minister said that the estimated cost of an in-house official transport service for Ministers and senior officials is £637,000, as opposed to £937,000 for a contracted-out service. Subsequent to that answer, he embargoed his reply as to which Ministers were using which service. He excluded details on the transport of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which are the responsibility of his Department. Will the Minister explain why those Ministers were excluded, which Department pays for their transport, which contracted-out services they use, how much that costs for each Minister, whether the arrangements were subject to the normal tendering procedures, and how much cheaper their transport would have been if it had been carried out by an in-house service?


Questions about services that are contracted by other Departments, rather than through the central service for which my Department is responsible, must be directed to the Departments concerned. The services for which my Department is responsible, and which are reflected in the costs that I gave, include Ministers and one junior Minister, but not the Ministers who are specified in the Member’s question.

UK Spending Review — Northern Ireland’s Allocation

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make a statement on discussions regarding Northern Ireland’s allocation in the UK spending review.
(AQO1196/01)


The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have written to the Chancellor on behalf of the Executive, stating that they expect to receive a share of public expenditure in the 2002 spending review that will enable us to match the standard of public services that is affordable, and afforded, in England. Discussions are taking place at official level on a range of spending review issues. Those will be followed shortly by further ministerial engagement with the Treasury.


Dr Farren has said that the funds allocated from the Chancellor in his Budget speech will not adequately meet the needs of our Health Service or other public services. That shows the deficiencies of the Barnett formula. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the allocation for Northern Ireland?


Public expenditure allocations to, and consequent spending in, Northern Ireland should be based on a fair and objective analysis of need. The key issue is the extent to which the Barnett formula addresses this. As I have said on several occasions, we have undertaken detailed and rigorous scrutiny of the Barnett formula. We have been looking carefully to see whether it meets our needs sufficiently both now and, more importantly in future. It is clear that we cannot continue to accept inadequate funding of the priority services that we have identified in health, education and transport. We cannot accept a situation where they are markedly less favourably treated than in England. That appears to be the consequence of Barnett.
The allocation that we will receive from the Budget statement shows how the Barnett formula will impact to our detriment in Northern Ireland. For example, in last Wednesday’s Budget the Chancellor announced that spending in England would rise by 43% over the next five years, even allowing for inflation. Our share of this new funding amounts to almost £2·7 billion; if we translate that into percentage increases, the increase in England will be around 10% over the same period, whereas here it will be only 7%. We must continue to highlight the scale of need here and the inadequacy of the consequentials from the Barnett formula as far as our budgetary needs are concerned.
I want to take this opportunity again to reassure the Assembly that we are determined to seek a fair and appropriate outcome to this year’s spending review, and that we will continue to press our needs vigorously with the Treasury.


The Minister has referred to some of the difficulties with the Barnett formula. Does he not agree that in the compilation of the Barnett formula, perhaps the greatest difficulty now lies in the comparability of Northern Ireland with England, Scotland and Wales? If so, is it not now time to freeze the amount of funding that we get through the block grant at its current level, and then add on the increases that are applicable to England, for example? Therefore where the Minister refers to a 10% increase for health in England, the read-across would be a 10% increase for Northern Ireland.


The Member will be aware that over the short period since devolution, the Executive have on several occasions taken the opportunity to add considerably to the Barnett consequentials, particularly in allocations to health.
I will make a statement later this afternoon that will highlight in more detail some of the difficulties that we continue to encounter with respect to the Barnett formula and its consequentials. We will base our case on the scale of our need and will press that case as vigorously as possible. At present, there is a degree of reluctance in the Treasury — to put it no stronger — to a wholesale opening up of all the issues concerning Barnett allocations to the devolved Administrations.
Nonetheless, that objective must be pursued, and the only basis on which it can be pursued effectively is a clear and detailed analysis of our needs.


All Members of the Assembly will wish the Minister and the Executive well in their ongoing discussions. To counteract the effect of the diminishment of our Barnett allocation and consequential allocations and to redress years of capital underinvestment during the years of direct rule will the Minister state whether he or his officials came under any pressure about our own internal revenue receipts?


On several occasions my predecessor and I made it clear that addressing the Barnett issue and attempting to open up the issue in a fundamental way is not a no-risk option. It raises questions that relate to the few, but significant, revenue streams over which we have control. We must address the fairness and adequacy of those revenue streams. If we do not take those initiatives ourselves, the Treasury will put pressure on us to do so.

NICS ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the progress made on the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’.
(AQO1190/01)


The plan underpins the corporate high-level strategy for the human resources management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, which seeks to ensure a more open, diverse and professional Civil Service that will continue to put the public interest first and serve the whole community.
The Northern Ireland Civil Service ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’ has been agreed with Departments and made available to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. It takes account of corporate business objectives and priorities. From 1April2002 it will be monitored and evaluated regularly.


Will the review of Civil Service accommodation impact on the ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’?


The review of Civil Service accommodation has made progress. We are anxious to ensure that we have not only the most appropriate form of accommodation to meet the needs of different Civil Service Departments but also to take action where required with regard to location. It is my understanding that the Member’s question relates to that aspect of the accommodation review. If I am incorrect in my interpretation, he can advise me afterwards, and I will ensure that I address the question in the terms that he intended.


How is the Northern Ireland Civil Service ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’ dealing with the unacceptably high levels of absenteeism in certain Departments? What percentage improvement does the Minister expect to achieve over the current financial year?


The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has developed robust statistics to help Departments to identify underlying trends and areas for further in-depth analysis. Its most recent report is available in the Assembly Library. My Department is also helping Departments to reduce absenteeism through corporate initiatives such as the development of a web site called ‘Attendance Matters’, the production of a leaflet for GPs on the support and early return mechanisms available to the staff of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and service-wide seminars and workshops on managing attendance.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate at this point to have an overall target, because levels of absenteeism vary between Departments. That requires us to address the circumstances that may be associated with absenteeism in each Department.

European Funding

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what measures are in place to ensure an equitable allocation of European funding across all sections of the community.
(AQO1168/01)


The European Union operational programmes, which include the building sustainable prosperity and Peace II programmes, were drawn up after extensive consultation and were informed by equality impact assessments. The programmes are governed by principles and actions to promote equality of opportunity, including access across all sectors of the community as defined by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I wish to emphasise that project selection procedures take equality issues into account.


What mechanism can the Department use to ensure that a balance is struck in the community divide, the urban/rural split and the geographical spread of allocations?


Three horizontal principles govern how the operational programmes will be implemented. These are: balanced intervention or, in our language, equality of opportunity; new TSN; and publicity or transparency. The programmes’ monitoring committees have a formal role to review progress made towards the achievement of the objectives of the programmes and the achievement of their targets, including performance against those horizontal principles.
The programmes’ managing authorities — the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Special EU Programmes Body — will be required to take any necessary corrective actions agreed by the monitoring committees in the light of the evaluations that they make.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. According to the Noble and Robson indices, projects in high TSN areas such as West Belfast, Lenadoon and the Foyle constituency, as well as projects such as the Inner City Trust, have been refused funding. Will the Minister assure the voluntary and community sectors in those areas that his measures are equitable?


All the practical procedures that flow from the principles that I have just stated are intended to ensure equity of treatment in evaluating all projects that are submitted for funding. I do not have the details — and I am not sure that it would be appropriate to comment on particular projects even if I did — but if the Member seeks further information I shall write to her.


Given the weak infrastructure in the Unionist community and the complexity of the EU application forms, and given the inequality that was experienced during Peace I, is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements will enable equality of opportunity and application? Will there be an equality of applications so that the opportunities will also be equal? If not, what action does he propose to take? When will there be an assessment of the interest expressed to date? Should the Department of Finance and Personnel be more proactive, just as other Departments were in encouraging applications to another community during Peace I?


I do not accept that there was any inequity in the treatment of applications from either community during Peace I. I assure the Member that all Departments that have a role to play in encouraging groups and organisations to come forward with projects, in assessing those projects and in determining any allocations that they are deemed worthy to receive, are concerned about ensuring that projects are proposed by all sections of our community. They wish to ensure that all the areas to which the programmes apply receive as balanced a set of applications as possible. The Special EU Programmes Body, the local strategy partnerships and the intermediate funding bodies have a role to promote information and to assist in the preparation and submission of applications. Local strategy partnerships have been very proactive in organising information events on projects that they wish to see promoted. They have also been proactive on measures used to finance in their areas. The monitoring to which I referred will take place, and I would be concerned if there were any evidence to suggest inequity of treatment. However, we have taken sufficient steps to put all the appropriate checks and balances in place in order to achieve a fair and equitable outcome.

Aggregates Tax

6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, pursuant to AQW 2707/01, how he will address the extra demands on the Executive Budget if aggregates tax is introduced.
(AQO1171/01)


We return to an issue that raises considerable concern. The extraction of virgin aggregates for commercial purposes has been, as I am sure most Members are aware, subject to the aggregates tax since 1 April 2002. I hasten to add that the tax is not imposed by our Executive. Initial costs arising from the tax on virgin aggregates during 2002-03 are being met in the usual way from the Executive Budget. However, the pre-Budget report of November 2001 gave a partial temporary derogation to Northern Ireland for aggregate used in processing. Therefore processed materials will be exempt from the tax in 2002-03 and phased in until full implementation is reached by 2007-08. This measure remains subject to EU state aid approval, but the Treasury remains confident of a successful outcome within the next few weeks. A commitment has been given by the Treasury that the first year’s exemption for aggregates used in processed products in Northern Ireland will be backdated to 1 April 2002.


Has the Minister commissioned research and costings to project the financial burden and predict job losses in the quarry industry, especially where competition is strong from neighbouring quarries in the Republic of Ireland? I am sure that he has considered the financial burden that the aggregates tax will put on the construction of roadways, and I believe about £1·7 million of aggregates tax will be on the Toome bypass. This money will go straight back to the Treasury out of our Budget and will be of no benefit to Northern Ireland’s people or the environment. Can the Minister assure the House that we are not poorer due to the aggregates tax, and has he discussed this dilemma with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister for Regional Development?


The Member will be aware of the deep concern that has been expressed in the Executive and by many Members since it was announced that an aggregates tax was to be imposed. My initial answer set out the facts, but that of course does not mean that I am satisfied with the situation that exists. The Member will be aware that a total derogation was the desired outcome of the Executive, but we recognised the difficulties in achieving this.
The Member and others, particularly from his own and neighbouring constituencies where the introduction of this tax is felt most acutely, will be aware that my officials are leading a cross-departmental group consulting with industry representatives to develop an alternative strategy, which will be consistent with European state aid regulations, that aims to secure a more favourable outcome than the current measure. In seeking an alternative to the aggregates tax, the Executive recognise the need to achieve the original environmental benefits of the tax through other means. Therefore what we are trying to achieve is a complete overturn of the imposition of this tax yet also achieve the objectives that lie behind it with respect to the environment. Thus we would remove the burden that the Member has underlined and which is being felt in many sections of the construction industry.

Investing for Health Strategy

7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in relation to the launch of the investing for health strategy, what extra moneys are being allocated to ensure the success of this strategy.
(AQO1188/01)


In addition to the Departments’ statements about what they can achieve with their existing resources, almost £5 million has been secured from Executive programme funds principally for the establishment of local investing for health partnerships, in the context of the investing for health strategy. Any further actions by Departments will require dedicated bids for resources through the normal bidding processes.


Will the Minister clarify that he intends to ensure that extra money will continue to be made available?


Additional funds must be associated with specific bids. The Member will appreciate that the issue does not simply relate to the strategy his question refers to. The issue is about allocating additional funds when there is evidence to support a bid.


Ms Armitage is not in the Chamber to ask her question.

Senior Civil Service Review

10. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how he intends to take forward the work on the review of the Senior Civil Service.
(AQO1167/01)


On 15 March I received the report of the review of the appointment and promotion procedures for the Senior Civil Service of Northern Ireland from Lord Ouseley, the review chairperson. As I have said before, the procedure was that I would consider the report and make recommendations on it and its future handling to the Executive. That is planned for early May, at which time the Executive will agree the consultation arrangements and procedures, along with the timetable for implementation and the wider publication of the report.


If the Minister has any further information, I must ask him to put it in writing to the Member as the time for questions is up.

Education

Mr Speaker: Question 9, in the name of Mr McElduff, has been withdrawn. Question 10, in the name of Dr O’Hagan, has been withdrawn because it was responded to through the Minister of Education’s statement earlier today.

Special Needs Requirements

Mrs Annie Courtney: 1. asked the Minister of Education how he proposes to satisfy special needs requirements for children, given that the number of special needs cases far exceeds the places available.
(AQO1173/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: This is the first time that I have seen Annie Courtney since her accident; I am pleased that she is back in the Assembly, and I hope that she is keeping well.
Under special education legislation, education and library boards have a duty to arrange that the special education provision, indicated in a statement of special educational needs, be made for children. The boards may place special education needs pupils in mainstream schools where they are satisfied that the placement will meet the children’s needs, without detriment to other children’s education and with regard to the efficient use of resources. When special education needs children attend a mainstream school, the board of governors must use its best endeavours to ensure that the special education provision required is given.
The incidence of children with statements of special educational needs has risen over the past four years, but I am not aware that the number of special needs cases far exceeds the places available. There are a small number of children whose needs cannot immediately be met in the educational setting named in the statement. However, the needs of children unable to obtain places are catered for through the provision of classroom assistants; additional support by peripatetic teachers in mainstream schools; outreach support; and, in a small number of cases, home tuition.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I thank the Minister for his good wishes; they are appreciated. I was probably thinking more about my constituency when I worded the question. As the Minister will be aware, the closure of Templemore Secondary School in Derry has been proposed. It has a high percentage of special needs cases. They are currently in mainstream schooling. How does the Minister propose to deal with that added burden, and will he make a statement to the House on this problem shortly?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The situation at Templemore Secondary School has been controversial. As Minister of Education, I can only respond to a development proposal on behalf of the Western Education and Library Board. The board said at its most recent meeting that it intends to issue such a development proposal to my Department, and, as Minister of Education, I will have to give that due consideration. However, there will be opportunity for everyone who is concerned about the situation at Templemore to make submissions to me.

Departmental Correspondence (Townland Names)

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 2. asked the Minister of Education what proactive steps he has taken to ensure that townland names are used in departmental correspondence.
(AQO1158/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I recognise the importance of townland names as part of our local heritage. In replying to correspondence, my Department will use townland names where correspondents have included them in their addresses.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. Townland names are a precious part of our heritage. Unfortunately, during the early 1970s the new postal arrangements decimated many townland names. Fortunately, the Assembly voted to resurrect our heritage on postal addresses. I am disappointed to hear the Minister saying that he will go as far as he can, depending on the incoming correspondence. The Assembly voted that all Departments should initiate the use of townland names. That could be quite easily achieved through the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, which is set up to provide such information. I plead with the Minister to tell his Department to issue townland names for all our rural communities.

Mr Martin McGuinness: My Department has no means to source accurate townland names easily for all addresses. I understand that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is supporting work to preserve and promote the use of place names. Mr McCarthy may wish to seek further details from Minister McGimpsey.
I appreciate that there has been a long-running campaign for the revival of the use of townland names. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is funding two projects to preserve and promote the use of place names: the common address file project, which aims to establish a standardised form of address to be adopted by all Government Departments and the private sector; and the place names project at Queen’s University Belfast, which researches the origins and meanings of place names.
I am sympathetic to Mr McCarthy’s point. It is an issue for all Departments that everyone should be concerned about. My mother comes from an area of County Donegal where there are many very beautiful place names such as Meenaharnish, Effishabreda, Crockahenny, Meentahalla and Glentogher. Those names are important to the people who live there, and the area where my mother comes from — Middle Illies — is used all the time in correspondence. I wrote to my uncle recently and I addressed the letter to John Doherty, Middle Illies, Ballymagan, County Donegal.

Teacher Redundancies

Mr John Dallat: 3. asked the Minister of Education what steps he intends to take to protect the jobs of teachers facing redundancy.
(AQO1147/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The general uplift in recurrent spending in schools in 2002-03 is 4·9%, which in overall terms is more than enough to meet general pay and price increases. Decisions on redundancies are a matter for individual boards of governors, in the light of their individual school circumstances, especially changes in enrolment.
If, however, a board of governors considers it necessary to make a teacher redundant, it may wish to consider discussing the financial position of the school with its education and library board, which will consider what additional assistance it can give in the context of its local management of schools (LMS) arrangements. It must have regard to its responsibilities towards other schools in the area. I will continue to press for additional resources for our schools at every opportunity.

Mr John Dallat: Is the Minister aware that the pupil to teacher ratios in the North Eastern Education and Library Board, which covers part of my constituency, are the worst of the five area boards? At a time when education resources must be directed at raising standards in the classroom, is the Minister satisfied that we are not losing valuable teaching expertise and experience through redundancies?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Redundancies can result from causes other than budget cuts and falling enrolments, such as organisational changes in a school and changes to the curriculum. However, individual circumstances may mean that some schools, especially those with falling enrolments, will have difficult decisions to make to ensure that they live within their budget.
Boards must continue to be proactive in ensuring that schools’ spending plans are realistic and monitored closely to ensure that deficits do not accumulate and become increasingly difficult to recover.
With regard to the North Eastern Education and Library Board, the Department distributes funding for controlled and maintained schools through the education and library boards, and boards have full, delegated authority to allocate budgets to individual schools. Although boards are aware of the Department’s policy on giving priority to schools’ delegated budgets, some may find it necessary to award a lesser uplift to schools because of pressure on budgets held centrally for specific services. Schools are expected to contain expenditure within their available budget.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Minister confirm that the North Eastern Education and Library Board is the most underfunded board in Northern Ireland, and that 100 teacher redundancies are pending? They are victims of that underfunding. Does he agree that that underfunding is gross discrimination against those teachers and the pupils served by that area, which is the largest Protestant area in Northern Ireland? Will he do something about it?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Here we go again, sectarianising the education debate. The budget available to fund core board services has been distributed fully on the basis of a methodology that reflects relative needs across the education and library boards. When funding is allocated to each education and library board, the Department stresses that boards should continue to give priority to school- delegated budgets, although it recognises that each board must set realistic figures for school-related central budgets, some of which, I understand, are suffering pressures in the North Eastern Education and Library Board area.

Mr Jim Wilson: Is the Minister aware that the present funding arrangements for the North Eastern Education and Library Board disadvantages it to the point where there is the real possibility of 75 redundancies in the foreseeable future? Does the Minister agree that a simple explanation of the unfairness is the fact that the North Eastern Education and Library Board has 21% of the Province’s pupils, but only 15% of the pupils who are entitled to free school meals? If he is aware of that underfunding, what measures does he propose to introduce to avoid those 75 redundancies being made?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I refer the Member to the answer that I have just given. I have explained that the budget available to fund core board services has been distributed fully on the basis of a methodology that reflects relative needs across the education and library boards. Those are issues that all education and library boards must deal with. There is no question of one board’s being given preferential treatment over another. All boards must live with the established methodology, and the responsibility to deal with that lies with the boards.
I am aware that there have been discussions about this matter between Members and the North Eastern Education and Library Board. The Department monitors the situation constantly with regard to the difficulties experienced by education and library boards, and will continue to do that in co-operation with the boards.

Burns Report

Mr Billy Armstrong: 4. asked the Minister of Education what assessment he can make in relation to the consultation process of the Burns Report.
(AQO1174/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: Consultation is ongoing and will last until 28 June 2002. My Department is using a variety of methods to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the debate. A detailed response booklet will be issued at the end of this month to schools, further education colleges, community groups and training organisations to facilitate consideration of the key issues and to help to structure responses.
In late May, my Department will issue a household response form to every household that will provide information about the review and it will seek the views of the public on the key issues. A household survey is planned to gather more in-depth views from the public. The Department is also considering how best to garner the views of young people. A summary analysis of the responses received will be published around the end of September.
I am engaged in a series of meetings involving the key players in our education system. I am keen to listen to suggestions, build consensus and stimulate discussion of the issues during the consultation period. I must emphasise that no decisions on future arrangements have been taken. I want to hear views on the Burns proposals, modifications to those proposals or alternative arrangements.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Does the Minister accept that his press releases condemning the use of the 11-plus and academic selection, which do not provide ideas on how children should be allocated to oversubscribed schools, do not help the debate on the review of post-primary education?

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is important that we focus on the task at hand. The weaknesses of the current arrangements are unacceptable and must be addressed. Save the Children, the Gallagher and Smith Report and Prof Gardiner have outlined those weaknesses. An on-the-record statement from the Committee for Education states that change is both necessary and appropriate.
There is a need for change, and it is widely accepted that the status quo is not an option. On several occasions, I have pointed out the need to address academic selection. The 11-plus has been widely debated, and, as a result of that debate, no one advocates its continuation. Anyone who wishes to make other suggestions about how we test children at the age of 10 or 11 must be aware that it is wrong to ask any Department of Education, or me as Minister of Education, to become involved in a process that would perpetuate the weaknesses that the 11-plus showed up.
The debate must be an informed one, and measures such as the video and household response forms contribute to people’s knowledge. We must ensure that those who do not benefit from the current system can make their views known. Educational issues must be considered above party political perspectives. I stress again that no decisions have been made on the Burns proposals or on any other issues. I have invited comments on the Burns proposals as they stand, and variations and modifications to the Burns proposals or alternative arrangements.
In respect of the other issues that the Member raised, the Department of Education is open to ideas and suggestions on issues such as the criteria for transfer from primary schools to post-primary schools. Burns made proposals on those issues, but we are not restricted to that analysis. Our minds are open about all of that. I am satisfied that the consultation has been properly handled, and I refute claims of bias. I issued press statements recently that reflected the views expressed to me in a series of meetings. I am undertaking, with keen interest, to listen to those views and to help to stimulate and inform the debate.

Mr Sammy Wilson: What is the Minister’s reaction to the resignation of the chairperson of the Governing Bodies Association (GBA), and to the chairperson’s statement in a morning newspaper today that he resigned because Catholic bishops were unduly influenced by the educational establishment’s politically correct views? The Minister has sought today — and in the consultation that has been sent out — to mislead the public by talking about schools that fail in Northern Ireland. Inspectors have not identified any of these failed schools. The Minister says that schools have failed youngsters, but in a reply to a Member less than a month ago, he stated that fewer people in Northern Ireland left school with no qualifications in the past six years than in England, Scotland or Wales.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I will not make any response to the resignation of the chairperson of the GBA. That is a matter between the chairperson of the GBA and the Catholic bishops. The Member must recognise that there are many myths in this area, one of which claims that we have a world-class education system that is the best in these islands. However, almost a quarter of our adult workforce is at the lowest level of literacy. Scotland has as many pupils achieving five and more GCSEs at grades A to C, and it has more young people entering higher education. England has more pupils achieving five GCSE passes at grades A to G.
A second myth is that academic selection provides a ladder to success for working class and disadvantaged children. However, currently only 8% of pupils in grammar schools are from low-income families, and in the Shankill less than 2% of pupils gained a grammar school place.
Who is speaking on behalf of those children?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Given some DUP Members’ silence on the issue, perhaps I am a better bet for the children of the Shankill Road than some of its representatives. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Disadvantaged pupils are only half as likely to achieve five good GCSEs as other children.
The third myth is that a grammar school education is needed to get into university and to get a good job. Around half of the students at the University of Ulster, and many at Queen’s University, did not take the traditional A-level route. That is food for thought.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Does the Minister share my concern about the amount of available legislative time left to the Assembly? Will he prepare a timescale for dealing with any legislative consequences that arise from the Burns Report, so that the legislation will not conveniently, or inconveniently, run into the sand?

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is vital that the consultation period runs its course. That consultation will close on 28 June, and my Department will then spend time — not too long I hope — analysing the results. Regardless of the opinions expressed by the DUP today, I recognise that I have the important job of building a consensus on the matter. It is my passionate wish to build that consensus with the more positive and constructive Assembly parties, of which there are many: the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Women’s Coalition, the Alliance Party and the PUP. Those parties have a keen interest in children’s education. As the Minister of Education, my next responsibility will be to present my ideas and proposals on how we should move forward. When a consensus is achieved, the Executive can decide how to proceed legislatively.

GCSE Engineering

Mr Ken Robinson: 5. asked the Minister of Education what steps he has taken to involve his Colleague, the Minister for Employment and Learning, in discussions with further education colleges and institutes to assist schools in upgrading their delivery of engineering and technology subjects in the light of the new GCSE examination in engineering.
(AQO1156/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The delivery of the new vocational GCSE in engineering does not depend on intervention by the further education sector. However, one cannot doubt the positive impact of teaching vocational subjects in schools, which can be brought to bear by drawing on the experience of the further education institutions, for which my Colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning is responsible.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Minister agree that the wasteful duplication of resources within and between Departments must be rooted out? Will he take affirmative action based upon specialist investigations, and issue circulars to schools instructing them actively to seek partnerships with local further education colleges for the better delivery of engineering and technology at GCSE level, rather than giving limp, unspecified encouragement to schools and colleges to work together?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The relationship between further education colleges and schools on the issue is based on supply and demand. Schools may use their delegated budgets to buy in the necessary expertise to ensure that special subjects such as engineering are taught effectively.

Children from North Belfast (Educational Attainment)

Mr Gerry Kelly: 6. asked the Minister of Education to detail the steps that he is taking to ensure that the educational experience and attainment of children from north Belfast does not suffer from the ongoing and recurring sectarian conflict in the area.
(AQO1176/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The schools in north Belfast have been operating under the most exceptional circumstances since last June and the onset of the protests at Holy Cross Girls’ Primary School. It is a tribute to the commitment and professionalism of teaching staff there that their pupils continue to have a normal education in such difficult circumstances. Members will know from my announcements on 17 December 2001 and 27 March 2002 of the extent to which the Executive and my Department have responded to the needs of the worst affected schools in north Belfast. To date, a total of almost £3 million has been allocated for specific measures to deal with the problems identified by the schools.
On many occasions, I have said that a priority for my Department is to ensure that all children have access to high-quality education provision in a safe and secure learning environment. To achieve that goal, a long-term solution to the problems in the area must be found. My Department therefore plays an active role in the interdepartmental liaison group for north Belfast and provides information and advice to the North Belfast Community Action Project. I met that group this morning. Mainstream programmes that target social disadvantage and underachievement will continue to be a priority in the main education programme.

Mr Gerry Kelly: Will the Minister agree, and will he reiterate, that our schools should be left in peace to get on with the job of the education of children, bearing in mind that the Minister has put in as much money and effort as possible? That effort and money should not be necessary — that was given in special circumstances. The core of the matter is that schools should be neutral and free from sectarian attack.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have consistently said that schools should be havens and that protests at, or attacks on, schools are totally unacceptable. The difficulty in north Belfast is a community issue in which local schoolchildren have unfortunately become embroiled. I have repeatedly urged politicians and community leaders, especially those who represent the local area, to engage in dialogue and work to reach an accommodation. It is only in that way that a resolution to the problem will be found and a normal educational environment restored.
As long as the situation continues, my officials and I will continue to monitor the problem and to provide support in all matters relating to the educational well-being of the children. My Department will continue to take an active role in the interdepartmental liaison group for north Belfast and to provide information and advice to the North Belfast Community Action Project.
The plight of the schoolchildren of north Belfast can be resolved through community dialogue — a willingness for all sides to come together and face up to their fears, concerns and perceptions. I ask people in north Belfast to look at the rest of the place and see people getting on with their lives. There are still some problems and difficulties, but people in north Belfast must consider what is happening elsewhere and be determined to live and work together to end the misery, which inflicts great hardship not just on themselves, but on their children.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: If the Minister were to check the records for the past 30 years, he would see the amount of money that has been spent on Protestant kids from the Belfast Boys’ Model School who were attacked. What criteria did he use to give money to these schools? Does the money that Mr Gerry Kelly referred to include the money used to fund police protection for the Protestant children attending Ballygolan and Cliftonville Primary Schools, the Belfast Boys’ Model School and other schools across north Belfast?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The situation in north Belfast is exceptional and requires a response to meet the circumstances. The education and library boards will continue to provide support services to all schools in their respective areas that require assistance. I am fully aware of the problems being faced by schools, not only in north Belfast, but also in other areas. My Department and the relevant education authorities will continue to monitor closely the situations as they arise. Where difficulties present themselves, appropriate steps will be taken to ensure the safety and well-being of pupils and the quality of the education they receive.
When I announced that my Department would be funding an extension of the Executive’s support package to include a further 13 primary schools in the north Belfast area, I said that we had been faced with difficult decisions due to limited funding. After consultation with our education partners it was decided that the primary schools should be the main focus. However, the youth initiative is important, and all secondary schools in the area could benefit from participation in such a scheme. My Department will therefore be bidding at the earliest opportunity for additional funds to extend the programme to all secondary schools in north Belfast.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am tempted to ask whether the funding includes the Abbots Cross, Whitehouse, and Rathcoole Primary Schools and, if not, why not.
Can the Minister tell me what assessment has been made of the effects of conflict on educational experience and attainment, not only in north Belfast but also in areas such as west Tyrone, which, as he knows, has suffered more than most from decades of Republican terrorist activity? Can he assure the Assembly that the military wing of Sinn Féin is not preparing to return to conflict?

Mr Martin McGuinness: As someone who has been at the heart of the peace process during the past 10 years —

Mr Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the Minister and ask him to respond in writing, as we have run out of time.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The Member was saved by the Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Mr Speaker: Question 11, standing in the name of Mr Mick Murphy, has been transferred to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and questions 8, 12, 16 and 17, standing in the names of Ms McWilliams, Dr Birnie, Mr McElduff and Mr Gallagher, respectively, have all been withdrawn and will receive written answers.

Availability of Incontinence Sheets

Mr John Dallat: 1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps she will take against hospital trusts who have withdrawn the availability of incontinence sheets, thereby reducing the dignity of bedridden patients.
(AQO1151/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Deirtear liom gur aistarraing dhá iontaobhas ospidéil, Green Park agus an tIúr agus an Mhorn braillíní neamhchoinneáltachta agus nach mbíonn siad in úsáid de ghnáth níos mó ag iontaobhais ar chúiseanna fheabhas caighdeáin. Tá éagsúlacht táirgí neamhchoinneálachta níos oiriúnaí ar nós pardóg agus brístíní ar fáil anois, a sholáthraíonn cosaint, compard agus dínit níos mó don duine aonair.
I am advised that incontinence sheets have been withdrawn by two hospital trusts — Green Park and Newry and Mourne — and are no longer routinely used by most trusts on quality improvement grounds. More appropriate incontinence products, such as pads and pants, are now available, and those provide greater protection, comfort and dignity for the individual.

Mr John Dallat: Does the Minister agree that personal hygiene is a basic human right, particularly for people — young or old — who are confined to bed? Will she ensure that the suffering of those people is not added to by their constantly having to plead for disposable sheets of a size and number appropriate to their needs? Will she assure me that I will never again hear reports of disposable sheets being dried on radiators because fresh ones are restricted, unavailable in the appropriate size, or totally unavailable, as she has just said?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I hope that the Member has not misunderstood my answer. I said clearly that a range of incontinence products, which provide greater protection and comfort, and which may be more appropriate to the needs of the patient, is available. Such products may also provide other benefits, such as the prevention of pressure sores. I am advised that incontinence sheets have been withdrawn by two trusts, and I understand that that policy is continually reviewed. I stress that, in other trusts, they are no longer routinely used on quality improvement grounds.
Having said that, the needs of individual patients are determined case by case. The appropriate incontinence products are issued following a full assessment and the development of an appropriate treatment plan. If the Member wishes to draw my attention to a particular case, he may wish to write to me about it.

Foyle Community HSS Trust: Diabetes Care Team

Mrs Annie Courtney: 2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline (a) if there is a psychologist employed in the diabetes care team for the Foyle Community HSS Trust; and (b) any steps she will take, if necessary, to address this situation.
(AQO1148/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá an fhoireann cúraim diaibéitis do limistéar an Fheabhail comhdhéanta d’fhoireann ó Iontaobhas Phobal an Fheabhail agus Iontaobhas Ospidéal Alt na nGealbhan. I láthair na huaire, níl aon síceolaí tiomanta d’fhoireann cúraim diaibéitis i limistéar an Fheabhail — tá teacht ag daoine le diaibéiteas ar thacaíocht síceolaíochta trí chúram príomhúil agus seirbhísí meabhairshláinte speisialtóra.
The diabetes team for the Foyle area is comprised of staff from Foyle Community HSS Trust and Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust. At present, no psychologist is dedicated to the diabetes care team in the Foyle area. Psychological support is accessible to people with diabetes through primary care and specialist mental health services.
The Western Health and Social Services Board is examining its priority developments for 2002-03 and hopes to be able to develop dedicated clinical psychology care for diabetics in Altnagelvin Hospital. However, that will depend on finalising investment plans and the availability of funding.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I am glad that that problem will be remedied in the near future. However, the consultant in charge is concerned that there is no psychologist at present. Diabetes is a killer. Many young and elderly people are affected. Some people go blind, and they and their families find it difficult to cope. They need psychological support immediately. I want the Minister to address that as soon as possible. I have written to the Western Health and Social Services Board. I doubt that there will be enough money in the current spending plans to make a psychologist available specifically to the diabetes care team.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Clinical psychology support is accessible to people with diabetes in all board areas through primary care and specialist mental health services. As I have said, the Western Board is currently examining its priority developments for 2002-03. When the plan is finalised and the amount of money available has also been analysed against the plan, the possibilities will become clear.
In relation to increasing the number of psychologists in order to have the necessary psychology input into different services, training at Queen’s University Belfast involves a three-year course. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has traditionally provided funding to support an annual intake of six people. In the past two years I have allocated additional funds for education and training that have enabled the intake to be increased to nine places. The Department understands the importance of making psychologists available through primary care, mental health services or dedicated input such as that which the Western Health and Social Services Board is examining at present.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Can the Minister inform the House of the current level of expenditure on diabetes research, bearing in mind that the number of patients with the disease is on the increase?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Given the amount and the wide variety of work that has been taken on board — including that of the joint task force that has been set up by the Clinical Resource Efficiency Support Team (CREST) and Diabetes UK, which includes representatives from the Department — it is not possible for me to provide an accurate figure today. However, I will write to the Member with it.

Digital Hearing Aids

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to give an update on her plans to introduce digital hearing aids.
(AQO1183/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá rún daingean agam áiseanna éisteachta digiteacha a thabhairt isteach a luaithe a bhíonn maoiniú ar fáil dóibh.
Ós rud é go bhfuil an buiséad forbartha atá ar fáil do sheirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta teoranta agus go bhfuil brú leanúnach ar fud speictream iomlán na seirbhísí, ní féidir leithdháileadh a dhéanamh ag an tráth seo ar an mhaoiniú breise athfhillteach atá de dhíth le háiseanna éisteachta digiteacha a thabhairt isteach go háitiúil.
I am committed to introducing digital hearing aids as soon as funding permits. Given the limited development budget available to health and social services and the continuing pressures across the whole spectrum of services, it is not possible to allocate the additional recurrent funding that is required to introduce digital hearing aids locally at present. An Executive programme fund bid for that purpose was unsuccessful last year. However, the Department will continue to explore all possible funding avenues.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Given that there are up to 100,000 hearing aid users in Northern Ireland, and that 70% of them could benefit from digital hearing aids, can the Minister confirm that a programme to introduce digital hearing aids here would cost £1·2 million? How does that figure compare to the amount of money that has already been spent on analogue hearing aids, which are of a bad standard? Digital hearing aids are better value for money in the long term.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I do not agree that analogue hearing aids are of a bad standard. I want digital hearing aids to be introduced, but that involves their assessment and fitting, which is a complex process requiring specialist equipment. Additional audiologists would have to be recruited to support provision.
It is estimated that provision of digital hearing aids to new users alone would cost around £1 million annually. Set-up costs, covering equipment, training and accommodation, would amount to around £300,000 each year. Roll-out of provision to existing users would take about eight years and cost a further £2 million each year. Set-up costs would be around £600,000. Therefore, in net terms, it is estimated that the additional cost of provision would be £750,000 a year to new users and £1·5 million a year to existing users over the roll-out period.

Mr Derek Hussey: I have asked the Minister a series of questions on the costs of digital hearing aids. The answers have shown that the gap between the comparative costs of analogue and digital hearing aids has closed considerably. Has the Minister taken that into consideration? When digital hearing aids are introduced, will the Minister give an assurance that hospital departments will receive proper resourcing to ensure that the necessary internal infrastructure is in place to enable proper assessment and provision?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have answered most of that already. I am aware that the gap in the costs of the aids themselves has closed considerably, as I said in answer to Ms Lewsley. However, assessment and fitting of digital hearing aids is more complex and requires additional audiologists, and that maintains a considerable gap in costs. The figures that I quoted are up to date.
As regards implementation costs, the additional 12 audiologists that are needed to support provision to new users alone would cost an extra £300,000 a year. An additional 24 audiologists to support provision to new and existing users would cost an extra £600,000 a year. The remainder of the implementation costs would cover the additional cost of the digital hearing aids, the average cost of which is estimated at £150 each — about £100 more than the current average cost of an analogue hearing aid.
The Department is examining the extra costs involved in the programme and looking specifically at what it would mean for the service — not merely for the aids themselves — to ensure that when they are introduced, it is for the maximum benefit of service users. I am committed to introducing them as soon as the money can be found.

Mr Speaker: Question 4 is in the name of Mr Molloy, but he is not in his place. I call Mr McCarthy.

Departmental Correspondence (Townland Names)

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail her policy on the use of townland names in departmental correspondence.
(AQO1159/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tacaím go hiomlán le húsáid a bhaint as ainmneacha bailte fearainn i gcaomhnú ár n-oidhreachta áitiúla, agus moltar don fhoireann i mo Roinn úsáid a bhaint as ainmneacha bailte fearainn agus iad ag freagairt do chomhfhreagras nuair a bhíonn na bailte fearainn curtha isteach ag comhfhreagraithe ina seoltaí.
I fully support the use of townland names in preserving our local heritage. Staff in my Department are encouraged to use townland names in replying to correspondence where correspondents have included them in their addresses.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Once again, I must express some disappointment with that response, which was similar to that of the Minister of Education. The Assembly took a clear decision some time ago that all Departments would use townland names.
As I said earlier, the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland has each townland name at its fingertips. We talk about so-called joined-up government. There does not seem to be much evidence of joined-up government in either the Department of Education or the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is time that the Executive carried out the wishes of the Assembly. Will the Minister go to the Ordnance Survey and get the information out to rural constituents?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A common address file project involving the Central Information Technology Unit is under way to establish a definitive index of addresses for use throughout the public and private sectors. One aim of the project is to ensure that the new system will include townland names for every address. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is supporting work to preserve and promote the use of place names.
As with the Department of Education, my Department has no means by which it could, on its own initiative, easily and accurately source townland names to include in its replies. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has input into common address file project. I expect that the Department will be allowed to have that file on its records and to install the automated systems.

Eastern Health and Social Services Board: Infertility Treatment Waiting Times

Mrs Eileen Bell: 6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail the waiting time for patients awaiting infertility treatment in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board area and to make a statement.
(AQO1160/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá réimse cóireálacha ar fáil do neamhthorthúlacht, lena n-áirítear cóireáil drugaí, máinliacht, inseamhnú saorga agus teicnící chúnamh ginte ar nós IVF. Beidh roinnt de na hothair atá ag feitheamh le cóireáil ar liostaí feithimh ginearálta, mar shampla gínéiceolaíocht agus ní féidir iad sin a dheighilt ó thaobh fáthmheas/faidhbe de.
Infertility treatment includes drugs, surgery, artificial insemination and assisted conception techniques such as IVF. Some patients await treatment on general waiting lists — for example, in gynaecology — and it is not possible to disaggregate those by diagnosis or problem.
Waiting lists have been established for the interim fertility service that commenced on 17 December 2001. It is not possible to give waiting times for those lists. Recent figures indicate that 299 local couples have been assessed as eligible for Health Service treatment and they await that at the regional fertility centre of the Royal Group of Hospitals. Every effort is being made to provide treatment as quickly as possible for those waiting.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I tabled this question after many patients approached me about waiting times. I hope that the Minister agrees that this sensitive treatment should not be unnecessarily delayed, because that would further upset patients.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I agree that there should be no unnecessary delay. That is why I set up an interim service, rather than wait until all the work had been done to put the full service in place. I intend to publish a consultation document on subfertility services by the summer. The outcome of the consultation will inform the provision of a permanent service, but I implemented the interim service because I knew that to set up a permanent service would take time, and I was anxious that people in such sensitive circumstances should not have to wait.

Special Schools: Provision of Nurses

Mr Sean Neeson: 7. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make a statement on the provision of nurses in special schools.
(AQO1162/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Soláthraíonn iontaobhais seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta éagsúlacht tacaíochta altranais do scoileanna speisialta. San áireamh sa réimse soláthar, tá altraí tiomanta ag freastal ar scoileanna i rith am téarma, tacaíocht ó altraí péidiatracha pobail, altraí do mhíchumais foghlama agus altraí ceantair, agus oiliúint arna sholáthar ag foireann altranais do mhúinteoirí agus do fhreastalaithe seomra ranga le cóireálacha agus drugaí a riaradh.
Health and social services trusts provide a variety of nursing support to special schools. Provision includes dedicated nurses who attend individual schools during term time, support from community, paediatric, learning disability and district nurses, and training by nursing staff of teachers and classroom attendants to administer treatment and drugs.
The report of the review of nursing services to children in special schools that was commissioned by the Department and issued to health and social services boards in 2000 did not recommend a dedicated nurse for each special school. Instead, it recommended that NVQ- trained carers with nursing support could meet the healthcare needs of children with special needs.

Mr Sean Neeson: To what extent do the Minister and her Department co-operate with the Minister of Education and his Department on the provision of such needs?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: There is co-operation, co-ordination and discussion between officials from the two Departments, and between local health and social services board representatives and education and library board representatives. However, it is for local health and social services trusts to determine the nursing support that is required by children with special needs and to decide how that should be provided, taking into account the available resources. Given the increase in numbers, health and social services boards, together with colleagues from education and library boards, are reviewing the nursing and other support required and the ways in which that might be provided.

Breastfeeding Mothers

Mr John Kelly: 9. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to provide data on the proportion of mothers who choose to breastfeed their babies.
(AQO1186/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Léiríonn na torthaí tosaigh ó bheathú naíonán 2000 gur tharla méadú suntasach anseo ar mháithreacha a thug an chíoch dá leanbh idir 1995 agus 2000. Mhéadaigh an líon sin ó 45% i 1995 go dtí 54% i 2000. I measc na mban a bhí ina máithreacha den chéad uair in aois 25 go 29 bliana, mhéadaigh an beathú cíche ó 60% i 1995 go 69% i 2000.
Preliminary results from the 2000 infant feeding survey show that between 1995 and 2000 there was a significant increase in breastfeeding here — from 45% in 1995 to 54% in 2000. Among first-time mothers aged 25 to 29, breastfeeding increased from 60% in 1995 to 69% in 2000. Although I am pleased with those results, we could do better, especially in lower socio-economic groups. For that reason, we recently appointed a breastfeeding co-ordinator to further promote breastfeeding here.

Mr John Kelly: I welcome the Minister’s answer, especially her remarks about lower socio-economic groups. It is relevant that infants who are breastfed are less prone to allergies and the diseases to which infants are susceptible. Does the Minister intend to either promote or advertise the advantages of breastfeeding?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Several activities will be given impetus by the breastfeeding co-ordinator’s appointment. Two hospitals and one community trust here have achieved World Health Organisation (WHO) baby-friendly status, which means that they satisfied the rigid criteria of WHO and UNICEF for actively implementing best practice in promoting breastfeeding. The appointment of the breastfeeding co-ordinator will give their work much greater impetus. In particular, the breastfeeding co-ordinator will develop a network of key individuals from boards and trusts, voluntary and community groups, and educational establishments in order to achieve the objectives of the strategy. I am delighted to say that Micheál Martin TD, the Minister for Health and Children in the South, has appointed the same co-ordinator to that Department’s committee on breastfeeding. The co-ordinator’s being a member of that committee provides an excellent opportunity to share ideas, to develop good practice on an all-island basis and to see what further work we can do to get the important message across.

Overcapacity in Adult Centres

Mr Billy Armstrong: 10. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps she has taken to address the overcapacity in adult centres.
(AQO1170/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Éilíonn mo thosaíochtaí do ghníomhaíocht 2002-03 go leanfaidh na hiontaobhais agus na boird sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta de bheith ag leathnú chúram lae agus cúram faoisimh do dhaoine faoi mhíchumas foghlama. Beidh cuid den mhaoiniú breise a leithdháil mé ar na boird le seirbhísí pobail a fhorbairt i 2002-03 ar fáil chun na críche seo.
Is faoi na hiontaobhais agus na boird sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta atá sé a chinntiú go mbíonn an réimse agus an méid seirbhísí chúram lae ann, lena n-áirítear áiteanna i lárionad lae do dhaoine fásta, le freastal ar an riachtanas áitiúil a aithníodh.
My priorities for action in 2002-03 require health and social services boards and trusts to continue to expand the provision of day care and respite care for people with a learning disability. Some of the additional funding that I have allocated to boards to develop community services in 2002-03 will be available for that purpose. It is for the health and social services boards and trusts to ensure that there is the range and volume of day care services, including places in adult day centres, to meet identified local need.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Some parents whose children attend Kilronan Special School in Mid Ulster have been informed that their children cannot be guaranteed places in local adult education centres when they move on. Does the Minister have proposals to deal with that? Has she discussed the problem with the Minister for Employment and Learning so that they can work in partnership to achieve a satisfactory outcome?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The Member may need to write to me with the details of that matter. The Northern Health and Social Services Board has reviewed its day care provision. Its plans to stimulate additional day care capacity include moving older service users to more age- appropriate settings. I am not sure whether that is what the Member is referring to. The board wishes to develop local small-scale projects with the voluntary sector that will offer alternatives to facility-based activities.

Community Care Packages

Ms Sue Ramsey: 13. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in relation to her announcement of the creation of 1,000 new community care packages, what criteria are being used to allocate the distribution of the packages.
(AQO1187/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá mé ag súil go gcuirfidh na boird a moltaí mionsonraithe do bhaint amach a scair chaipitlíochta den sprioc 1,000 faoi mo bhráid go gairid. Áireofar ar na moltaí mionsonraithe sin pleananna le leanúint le hinfheistíocht a dhéanamh i seirbhísí pobail, ag baint úsáide as an réimse chuí scileanna SSSP, le tacaíocht a thabhairt do dhaoine i suímh sa phobal a éascaíonn filleadh ar an neamhspleáchas agus laghdú a dhéanamh ar an ghá le cúram baile fadtréimhseach cónaitheach agus altranais.
I expect boards to provide me shortly with detailed proposals for achieving their capitation share of the 1,000 community care packages. The proposals will include plans to continue investment in community services, using the appropriate range of health and social services skills to support people in community settings which facilitate a return to independence and reduce the need for long- term residential and nursing-home care. Boards and trusts are also required to look at the good practices in service provision, identified in the first report on the review of community care that I published today. The aim is to reduce inappropriate hospital admissions and to set targets for reducing the number of people who remain in hospital after they are found to be medically fit for discharge.

Ms Sue Ramsey: I welcome the Minister’s answer, and I acknowledge the fact that she has announced the review of community care today. Does she know what measures the boards will put in place to ensure that service users and their families are aware of the criteria they must meet to apply for a package?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: From my knowledge of other work, I understand that one of our main aims is to make progress on the strategy for carers. That includes making carers aware of what provisions are available. Some of the good practice that is involved in the first stage of the community care review is concerned with ensuring that discussions take place when community care is being made available.
It is imperative that domiciliary care be one of the main planks of community care policy. I am aware that we must ensure that money is allocated to where it is most needed. The community care review has examined several projects, particularly those demonstrating innovation in the way that we deliver community care to older and more vulnerable people. We intend to take a further in-depth look at those projects in the second phase of the review so that the good practice may be replicated throughout the health and personal social services. Although the second phase of the review will take some time, I assure the Member that the work on good practice is ongoing.

Health Databases — All-Ireland Co-ordination

Mr Gerry Kelly: 14. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps have been taken, or are planned to be taken, in relation to all-Ireland co-ordination of data collection for health databases.
(AQO1185/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Cé nach bhfuil aon chóras comhordaithe tiomsaithe sonraí ar bhonn uile-Éireann do bhunachar sonraí sláinte ann go fóill, bunaíodh dlúthnasc oibre idir eagraíochtaí éagsúla anseo agus sa Deisceart le tiomsú agus taifeadadh sonraí a thabhairt le chéile. Sampla amháin de sin is é obair na Clárlainne Ailse anseo agus obair na Clárlainne Náisiúnta Ailse i gCorcaigh i mbunachar sonraí staitisticí ailse uile-Éireann a chruthú.
Although there is not yet any systematic all-Ireland co-ordination of health data, close working links have been established between organisations here and in the South to harmonise the collection and recording of such information. For example, the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and the National Cancer Registry of Ireland, which is in Cork, are creating an all-Ireland database of cancer statistics.

Mr Gerry Kelly: The Minister said that there are no operational databases. Have there been moves to create databases relating to child abuse offenders, North and South?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Yes. The North/South Ministerial Council, in its education sectoral format, is dealing with that matter; therefore, it would be more appropriate to direct that question to the Minister of Education. There have been practical difficulties in creating other types of databases, due to differences in how data are defined and collected, and how services are organised, funded, and delivered. We will be examining all those issues.

Care of Residents in Nursing Homes

Mr David Ford: 15. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the current position in discussions on the increase of contract prices for the care of residents in nursing homes.
(AQO1161/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Mar aitheantas ar an ardú ghéar i gcostais san earnáil chónaitheach agus tithe altranais, tá 3·6 mhilliún breise curtha ar fáil agam in éineacht leis an ghnáthardú bhliantúil le méadú a dhéanamh ar na táillí a íoctar ar áiteanna sna tithe seo.
In recognition of the steep increase in residential and nursing home costs, I provided a further £3·6 million on top of the normal annual uplift to increase the fees paid for places in those homes. Fees will increase this year by approximately 5·5%.

Finance and Personnel

Mr Speaker: Question 1, in the name of Mr McElduff, and question 9, in the name of Mr Gallagher, have been withdrawn and will receive written answers.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Ministerial Transport Costs

Mr Ken Robinson: 2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail (a) the names of all private hire firms used by the Executive to supply ministerial limousines and transport for Ministers; and (b) the costs associated with the hire of such services and transport.
(AQO1191/01)

Dr Sean Farren: Crown Chauffeur Drive, Belfast, and W&N Services, Bangor, provide official transport for Ministers. In the 12 months ending 28 February 2002, Crown Chauffeur Drive was paid £101,000 for the service, and W&N Services was paid £260,000.

Mr Ken Robinson: The Minister said that the estimated cost of an in-house official transport service for Ministers and senior officials is £637,000, as opposed to £937,000 for a contracted-out service. Subsequent to that answer, he embargoed his reply as to which Ministers were using which service. He excluded details on the transport of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, which are the responsibility of his Department. Will the Minister explain why those Ministers were excluded, which Department pays for their transport, which contracted-out services they use, how much that costs for each Minister, whether the arrangements were subject to the normal tendering procedures, and how much cheaper their transport would have been if it had been carried out by an in-house service?

Dr Sean Farren: Questions about services that are contracted by other Departments, rather than through the central service for which my Department is responsible, must be directed to the Departments concerned. The services for which my Department is responsible, and which are reflected in the costs that I gave, include Ministers and one junior Minister, but not the Ministers who are specified in the Member’s question.

UK Spending Review — Northern Ireland’s Allocation

Mr John Dallat: 3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make a statement on discussions regarding Northern Ireland’s allocation in the UK spending review.
(AQO1196/01)

Dr Sean Farren: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have written to the Chancellor on behalf of the Executive, stating that they expect to receive a share of public expenditure in the 2002 spending review that will enable us to match the standard of public services that is affordable, and afforded, in England. Discussions are taking place at official level on a range of spending review issues. Those will be followed shortly by further ministerial engagement with the Treasury.

Mr John Dallat: Dr Farren has said that the funds allocated from the Chancellor in his Budget speech will not adequately meet the needs of our Health Service or other public services. That shows the deficiencies of the Barnett formula. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the allocation for Northern Ireland?

Dr Sean Farren: Public expenditure allocations to, and consequent spending in, Northern Ireland should be based on a fair and objective analysis of need. The key issue is the extent to which the Barnett formula addresses this. As I have said on several occasions, we have undertaken detailed and rigorous scrutiny of the Barnett formula. We have been looking carefully to see whether it meets our needs sufficiently both now and, more importantly in future. It is clear that we cannot continue to accept inadequate funding of the priority services that we have identified in health, education and transport. We cannot accept a situation where they are markedly less favourably treated than in England. That appears to be the consequence of Barnett.
The allocation that we will receive from the Budget statement shows how the Barnett formula will impact to our detriment in Northern Ireland. For example, in last Wednesday’s Budget the Chancellor announced that spending in England would rise by 43% over the next five years, even allowing for inflation. Our share of this new funding amounts to almost £2·7 billion; if we translate that into percentage increases, the increase in England will be around 10% over the same period, whereas here it will be only 7%. We must continue to highlight the scale of need here and the inadequacy of the consequentials from the Barnett formula as far as our budgetary needs are concerned.
I want to take this opportunity again to reassure the Assembly that we are determined to seek a fair and appropriate outcome to this year’s spending review, and that we will continue to press our needs vigorously with the Treasury.

Mr Seamus Close: The Minister has referred to some of the difficulties with the Barnett formula. Does he not agree that in the compilation of the Barnett formula, perhaps the greatest difficulty now lies in the comparability of Northern Ireland with England, Scotland and Wales? If so, is it not now time to freeze the amount of funding that we get through the block grant at its current level, and then add on the increases that are applicable to England, for example? Therefore where the Minister refers to a 10% increase for health in England, the read-across would be a 10% increase for Northern Ireland.

Dr Sean Farren: The Member will be aware that over the short period since devolution, the Executive have on several occasions taken the opportunity to add considerably to the Barnett consequentials, particularly in allocations to health.
I will make a statement later this afternoon that will highlight in more detail some of the difficulties that we continue to encounter with respect to the Barnett formula and its consequentials. We will base our case on the scale of our need and will press that case as vigorously as possible. At present, there is a degree of reluctance in the Treasury — to put it no stronger — to a wholesale opening up of all the issues concerning Barnett allocations to the devolved Administrations.
Nonetheless, that objective must be pursued, and the only basis on which it can be pursued effectively is a clear and detailed analysis of our needs.

Mr Derek Hussey: All Members of the Assembly will wish the Minister and the Executive well in their ongoing discussions. To counteract the effect of the diminishment of our Barnett allocation and consequential allocations and to redress years of capital underinvestment during the years of direct rule will the Minister state whether he or his officials came under any pressure about our own internal revenue receipts?

Dr Sean Farren: On several occasions my predecessor and I made it clear that addressing the Barnett issue and attempting to open up the issue in a fundamental way is not a no-risk option. It raises questions that relate to the few, but significant, revenue streams over which we have control. We must address the fairness and adequacy of those revenue streams. If we do not take those initiatives ourselves, the Treasury will put pressure on us to do so.

NICS ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’

Mr Alex Maskey: 4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the progress made on the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’.
(AQO1190/01)

Dr Sean Farren: The plan underpins the corporate high-level strategy for the human resources management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, which seeks to ensure a more open, diverse and professional Civil Service that will continue to put the public interest first and serve the whole community.
The Northern Ireland Civil Service ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’ has been agreed with Departments and made available to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. It takes account of corporate business objectives and priorities. From 1April2002 it will be monitored and evaluated regularly.

Mr Alex Maskey: Will the review of Civil Service accommodation impact on the ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’?

Dr Sean Farren: The review of Civil Service accommodation has made progress. We are anxious to ensure that we have not only the most appropriate form of accommodation to meet the needs of different Civil Service Departments but also to take action where required with regard to location. It is my understanding that the Member’s question relates to that aspect of the accommodation review. If I am incorrect in my interpretation, he can advise me afterwards, and I will ensure that I address the question in the terms that he intended.

Rev Robert Coulter: How is the Northern Ireland Civil Service ‘Human Resources Action Plan 2002-03’ dealing with the unacceptably high levels of absenteeism in certain Departments? What percentage improvement does the Minister expect to achieve over the current financial year?

Dr Sean Farren: The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has developed robust statistics to help Departments to identify underlying trends and areas for further in-depth analysis. Its most recent report is available in the Assembly Library. My Department is also helping Departments to reduce absenteeism through corporate initiatives such as the development of a web site called ‘Attendance Matters’, the production of a leaflet for GPs on the support and early return mechanisms available to the staff of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and service-wide seminars and workshops on managing attendance.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate at this point to have an overall target, because levels of absenteeism vary between Departments. That requires us to address the circumstances that may be associated with absenteeism in each Department.

European Funding

Mr Alban Maginness: 5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what measures are in place to ensure an equitable allocation of European funding across all sections of the community.
(AQO1168/01)

Dr Sean Farren: The European Union operational programmes, which include the building sustainable prosperity and Peace II programmes, were drawn up after extensive consultation and were informed by equality impact assessments. The programmes are governed by principles and actions to promote equality of opportunity, including access across all sectors of the community as defined by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I wish to emphasise that project selection procedures take equality issues into account.

Mr Alban Maginness: What mechanism can the Department use to ensure that a balance is struck in the community divide, the urban/rural split and the geographical spread of allocations?

Dr Sean Farren: Three horizontal principles govern how the operational programmes will be implemented. These are: balanced intervention or, in our language, equality of opportunity; new TSN; and publicity or transparency. The programmes’ monitoring committees have a formal role to review progress made towards the achievement of the objectives of the programmes and the achievement of their targets, including performance against those horizontal principles.
The programmes’ managing authorities — the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Special EU Programmes Body — will be required to take any necessary corrective actions agreed by the monitoring committees in the light of the evaluations that they make.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. According to the Noble and Robson indices, projects in high TSN areas such as West Belfast, Lenadoon and the Foyle constituency, as well as projects such as the Inner City Trust, have been refused funding. Will the Minister assure the voluntary and community sectors in those areas that his measures are equitable?

Dr Sean Farren: All the practical procedures that flow from the principles that I have just stated are intended to ensure equity of treatment in evaluating all projects that are submitted for funding. I do not have the details — and I am not sure that it would be appropriate to comment on particular projects even if I did — but if the Member seeks further information I shall write to her.

Mr Roy Beggs: Given the weak infrastructure in the Unionist community and the complexity of the EU application forms, and given the inequality that was experienced during Peace I, is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements will enable equality of opportunity and application? Will there be an equality of applications so that the opportunities will also be equal? If not, what action does he propose to take? When will there be an assessment of the interest expressed to date? Should the Department of Finance and Personnel be more proactive, just as other Departments were in encouraging applications to another community during Peace I?

Dr Sean Farren: I do not accept that there was any inequity in the treatment of applications from either community during Peace I. I assure the Member that all Departments that have a role to play in encouraging groups and organisations to come forward with projects, in assessing those projects and in determining any allocations that they are deemed worthy to receive, are concerned about ensuring that projects are proposed by all sections of our community. They wish to ensure that all the areas to which the programmes apply receive as balanced a set of applications as possible. The Special EU Programmes Body, the local strategy partnerships and the intermediate funding bodies have a role to promote information and to assist in the preparation and submission of applications. Local strategy partnerships have been very proactive in organising information events on projects that they wish to see promoted. They have also been proactive on measures used to finance in their areas. The monitoring to which I referred will take place, and I would be concerned if there were any evidence to suggest inequity of treatment. However, we have taken sufficient steps to put all the appropriate checks and balances in place in order to achieve a fair and equitable outcome.

Aggregates Tax

Mr Billy Armstrong: 6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, pursuant to AQW 2707/01, how he will address the extra demands on the Executive Budget if aggregates tax is introduced.
(AQO1171/01)

Dr Sean Farren: We return to an issue that raises considerable concern. The extraction of virgin aggregates for commercial purposes has been, as I am sure most Members are aware, subject to the aggregates tax since 1 April 2002. I hasten to add that the tax is not imposed by our Executive. Initial costs arising from the tax on virgin aggregates during 2002-03 are being met in the usual way from the Executive Budget. However, the pre-Budget report of November 2001 gave a partial temporary derogation to Northern Ireland for aggregate used in processing. Therefore processed materials will be exempt from the tax in 2002-03 and phased in until full implementation is reached by 2007-08. This measure remains subject to EU state aid approval, but the Treasury remains confident of a successful outcome within the next few weeks. A commitment has been given by the Treasury that the first year’s exemption for aggregates used in processed products in Northern Ireland will be backdated to 1 April 2002.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Has the Minister commissioned research and costings to project the financial burden and predict job losses in the quarry industry, especially where competition is strong from neighbouring quarries in the Republic of Ireland? I am sure that he has considered the financial burden that the aggregates tax will put on the construction of roadways, and I believe about £1·7 million of aggregates tax will be on the Toome bypass. This money will go straight back to the Treasury out of our Budget and will be of no benefit to Northern Ireland’s people or the environment. Can the Minister assure the House that we are not poorer due to the aggregates tax, and has he discussed this dilemma with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister for Regional Development?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member will be aware of the deep concern that has been expressed in the Executive and by many Members since it was announced that an aggregates tax was to be imposed. My initial answer set out the facts, but that of course does not mean that I am satisfied with the situation that exists. The Member will be aware that a total derogation was the desired outcome of the Executive, but we recognised the difficulties in achieving this.
The Member and others, particularly from his own and neighbouring constituencies where the introduction of this tax is felt most acutely, will be aware that my officials are leading a cross-departmental group consulting with industry representatives to develop an alternative strategy, which will be consistent with European state aid regulations, that aims to secure a more favourable outcome than the current measure. In seeking an alternative to the aggregates tax, the Executive recognise the need to achieve the original environmental benefits of the tax through other means. Therefore what we are trying to achieve is a complete overturn of the imposition of this tax yet also achieve the objectives that lie behind it with respect to the environment. Thus we would remove the burden that the Member has underlined and which is being felt in many sections of the construction industry.

Investing for Health Strategy

Mr John Kelly: 7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in relation to the launch of the investing for health strategy, what extra moneys are being allocated to ensure the success of this strategy.
(AQO1188/01)

Dr Sean Farren: In addition to the Departments’ statements about what they can achieve with their existing resources, almost £5 million has been secured from Executive programme funds principally for the establishment of local investing for health partnerships, in the context of the investing for health strategy. Any further actions by Departments will require dedicated bids for resources through the normal bidding processes.

Mr John Kelly: Will the Minister clarify that he intends to ensure that extra money will continue to be made available?

Dr Sean Farren: Additional funds must be associated with specific bids. The Member will appreciate that the issue does not simply relate to the strategy his question refers to. The issue is about allocating additional funds when there is evidence to support a bid.

Ms Jane Morrice: Ms Armitage is not in the Chamber to ask her question.

Senior Civil Service Review

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 10. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how he intends to take forward the work on the review of the Senior Civil Service.
(AQO1167/01)

Dr Sean Farren: On 15 March I received the report of the review of the appointment and promotion procedures for the Senior Civil Service of Northern Ireland from Lord Ouseley, the review chairperson. As I have said before, the procedure was that I would consider the report and make recommendations on it and its future handling to the Executive. That is planned for early May, at which time the Executive will agree the consultation arrangements and procedures, along with the timetable for implementation and the wider publication of the report.

Ms Jane Morrice: If the Minister has any further information, I must ask him to put it in writing to the Member as the time for questions is up.

Impact of the Budget on Northern Ireland

Ms Jane Morrice: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the impact of the Budget on Northern Ireland.

Dr Sean Farren: With permission, I will make a statement on behalf of the Executive on the implications that the Chancellor’s recent Budget statement will have for people in Northern Ireland.
First, I will focus on public expenditure and the implications for our Health Service. The Chancellor announced several new measures that will have implications for public expenditure in Northern Ireland. The most significant implication is that during the next five years, health spending in England will rise by 43% in real terms. It is worth remembering that the cost of providing health services is rising more rapidly than the measure of general inflation that the Treasury has used. Under the Barnett formula, the Executive will be provided with approximately an additional £2·7 billion over the next five years. In the next financial year, the amount will be £73million, and the larger amounts relate to the more distant future, rising to £1,037 million in 2007-08. The figures are set out in the table attached to the copies of my statement that have been circulated to Members.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair)
The Chancellor has confirmed two other small increases in our departmental expenditure limit. Barnett consequentials arise from the latest round of allocations from the Treasury’s capital modernisation fund round, which provides an increase of £8·7 million in 2002-03. The final item is the sum of £500,000 in 2002-03 and 2003-04, which arises from an increase in funding by the Department for Education and Skills. It is for the Learning and Skills Council to provide support for small organisations to achieve the Investors in People standard.
I stress that these sums represent increases in our assigned departmental expenditure limit and, as such, they are not earmarked for any particular service. The Executive will have full discretion in allocating them to the priorities set by the Assembly. The additional sums available to us in 2002-03 will be added to those that remained unallocated after the February monitoring exercise, and we will be considering which services they should be allocated to shortly. The additions to our provision for 2003-04 will be considered in the context of the Budget 2002 exercise, which has recently started with the production of the departmental position reports.
The increases for the Health Service announced by the Chancellor have attracted considerable attention and interest. They are undoubtedly large increases and they are welcome — although in reality the growth in health spending that the Chancellor is providing is very similar to the pattern set in the Budget of March 2000. The increases are also necessary, given the particular problems we face here. Such difficulties have been aired in the Assembly on many occasions.
The allocation of funds, including these additional funds, falls entirely within the discretion of the Executive, and we have many public expenditure and revenue issues to address in the wider context of the spending review. We must ensure that we have a clear view of our priorities — as distinct from those of the Treasury — and what we are trying to achieve. Health has been well established as a priority by the Executive and the Assembly, and the health sector faces many acute difficulties. For that reason — notwithstanding concerns about the adequacy of the additional funding — it is entirely appropriate that we should allocate the additional funds that flow from the Chancellor’s Budget to health, and I will be recommending that to my Executive Colleagues.
In making these allocations I want to be sure that the increased funding has a demonstrable impact on the delivery of health services. To that end, the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety are jointly carrying out a needs and effectiveness evaluation on health and social care. I will work with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that the public benefits from this new allocation as much as possible. It is vital that we address these issues if we are to make real progress in building a Health Service fit for the twenty-first century.
The most important issue is that the Health Service must meet the needs of patients. Together with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I want to ensure that the additional funds result in a real difference in the care provided to the people of Northern Ireland. The Executive are committed to a major programme of reform of the public sector, and have begun to apply that in health and in other sectors. We must consider how best to apply in Northern Ireland the principles of reform that have been announced by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health.
The new figures are significant. However, when we look below the headlines, what stands out is that Northern Ireland’s share of the new expenditure will again fall short of what the Executive needs in order to match the growth in English spending on health. The first table and chart that I have attached to copies of my statement show that while English spending will rise by up to 10% per annum, Northern Ireland’s allocation will allow growth of only 7·5% on average in the Health Service here. In real terms, growth — compared to the Chancellor’s figure of 43% in England — is only 29% in Northern Ireland. Most of the supposed "real growth" is likely to be needed just to maintain services as they are now.
We are not party to the hype of last week, which overstated the benefit that the Budget will provide for the Health Service in Northern Ireland. The issue emphasises starkly our difficulties with the Barnett formula, which gives Northern Ireland less growth in spending than that of England. The Budget announcement has accelerated that trend. It means that if we were to add only the Barnett share to the health budget in Northern Ireland, the amount would be insufficient to meet the needs of the local Health Service. Indeed, objectively, if we allocate only the additional amounts that we receive under the Barnett formula, we will struggle to maintain the Health Service in its present highly unsatisfactory state. That is in contrast to the position in England, where the Chancellor has allocated enough to provide for real service improvements.
As things stand, if the Executive are simply to keep pace with the cash growth planned in England, without taking account of relative needs, over the next five years we will need more than £1 billion more than we have received in the Budget. The House will appreciate that the problem is not new. Since devolution the Assembly has given significant priority to health. Before this Budget, for the three financial years of 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, we received Barnett additions of £8·7 million from the Chancellor. However, we allocated just under £1 billion to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in that period — £192 million more than we had received.
It is worth pointing out a further important aspect of the Barnett formula that works against us. The arithmetic of the formula, on which I have focused so far, might perhaps be reasonable if we had higher standards of public services than in England. The important point is that the Barnett formula takes no account of our comparative levels of need. We have increasing evidence of greater need in relation to health than in England. An analysis of relative needs is part of the needs and effectiveness evaluation of health and social care that is currently being carried out by the Economic Policy Unit, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Before getting too far into the subject, it is important to stress that the comparisons with England are only one relevant factor in considering spending allocations. The Assembly has the right to set its own priorities, which may mean a different pattern of allocations than elsewhere.
The key issues for the spending review are whether we have a fair share of the Chancellor’s total cake and whether we are drawing in an appropriate share of revenue for which we are also responsible. In a debate with the Treasury, it is impossible to address spending without looking at revenue.
Although work on comparative needs has not yet concluded, the results suggest that to provide services at a similar standard to that in England, we need about 17% more for each individual. Thus, for every £1 spent on health for each person in England, Northern Ireland needs £1·17 for each person. That is a conservative analysis, which excludes some factors that give rise to genuine additional costs here. Indeed, the research evidence could be interpreted as supporting a higher figure.
Despite the fact that more money has been allocated to health, the gap is increasing because of the Barnett squeeze. We have good evidence that, when need is taken into account, the Health Service needs an additional £300 million a year to match English standards of service. That will be significantly compounded if we, and the Treasury, do not address the divergence in amounts provided over the next five years. We cannot accept that situation. To provide effective public services across Departments, we must increase the amounts that we have to spend. Ways to achieve that include mounting an effective challenge to Barnett and closely examining our revenue sources.
Members will also be aware that we are moving ahead with an examination of how best to make private finance work to meet Northern Ireland’s needs. I am already pressing the Treasury for more in the forthcoming spending review. Challenging Barnett is not something that can be undertaken lightly. As I have said before, it is not a no-risk option. It is not a matter of simply asking London for a peace dividend. We need a sound realistic strategy that recognises the realities of our position and argues our case strongly and responsibly.
My predecessor and I have made it clear that any challenge would open up the debate on sources of local revenue and lead to strong pressure from the Treasury that we should contribute more resources than at present. That would mean looking hard at the amounts that we raise locally.
At this stage, the key question is whether we are getting a fair share of the resources available to the Chancellor. Addressing that is a very complex and difficult task. One reason that Barnett has been accepted for so long is that it avoids that issue. The Executive have shown at Question Time and on other recent occasions that we are taking up that challenge.
While health spending is less well funded here than in England, particularly when need is taken into account, I must also sound a clear note of caution. For some programmes here, there is a much higher level of spending and less convincing evidence of need than in England. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that we have a strong case for something better than the Barnett formula can provide in this spending round.
However, that case is clearly and significantly undermined because we raise much less from local sources of revenue than England. The Treasury can be expected to look to us to address that issue as part of the examination of our case for a better share of public spending — hence the importance of the fundamental review of rating policy on which the Executive have embarked. We are preparing to launch a detailed consultation process, during which everyone will be invited to make comment.
I hope that all parties will fully engage in the consultation process, which will be comprehensive and will cover both the existing system and possible alternatives. I emphasise that no decisions have been taken and no directions have been recommended. Let me make it clear that I am neither imposing nor proposing any particular type of charges.
Public services in Northern Ireland suffer from a legacy of underinvestment. It is well known to Members on all sides of the House that many of our services, especially health, education, water and transport, currently require levels of capital investment far in excess of the resources available to us. At present, the sums required to solve the significant problems that we face are well in excess of the amounts that the Executive have to spend. That is the underlying fact which guides all thinking and action on the issues of resource allocation. As we begin the process of setting our spending plans for 2003-04 and beyond, we have to think very carefully and be prepared to face, and take, tough decisions on the core issue of how best to improve public services.
The latest estimates put the deficit between what our current budget can sustain and what we actually need to do in terms of capital investment at a minimum of £6 billion over the next 10 years. I stress that much of that investment is likely to be needed in the next five years. I have some sympathy with the sentiments expressed in the report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel that we need a strategic focus for our infrastructure programme and effective organisational arrangements to deliver the strategy.
I now turn to some other measures in the Chancellor’s Budget. Apart from the headline news on new expenditure, the Chancellor has continued his long-term theme of reforming the tax regime for workers and companies. Some of those changes are particularly welcome here; others are not. The small firm sector is very important in Northern Ireland. The proposals to zero-rate the smallest firms for corporation tax and to reduce the basic rate for the rest will provide benefits for up to 12,000 businesses. Those firms will also welcome the significant reductions in the administrative burden of value added tax.
A few of our larger companies will also be able to benefit from the new research and development tax credit, but only a few. We have been pressing the Treasury for a regionally targeted research and development tax regime to target regions such as ours. That could improve our present performance. The research and development tax incentive should, nonetheless, encourage local businesses to invest for growth, and I trust that they will take advantage of it in that regard.
Unfortunately, the Budget was less helpful on other tax issues. The decision not to make any special arrangement on the duty on fuel does nothing to close the differential with the South, which has been an open incentive to smuggling and evasion. The failure to amend the air passenger duty regime in recognition of our heavy dependence on air links with GB was also very disappointing.
I welcome the simplification of the range of support for low-paid workers and those with children, the arrangements for which were announced in the Budget. Together with the new working tax credit and child tax credit, those arrangements will benefit an estimated 250,000 families in Northern Ireland.
I hope that my review of how the Chancellor’s Budget will affect us here has been helpful to Members in outlining some of the issues that we face and what we seek to achieve. I am for public services and better investment in our infrastructure. I am determined to find effective and fair ways to deliver the services and facilities that our community needs.
I look forward to the continuing co-operation and support of my ministerial Colleagues. I trust that we can depend on the support of the Assembly and all those who are making the case for additional spending to pursue these goals. I will keep the Assembly and the Committee for Finance and Personnel up to date on how the issues develop.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and the accompanying figures giving more detail and explanation of how the Budget will affect us. I hope that this year’s spending review and Budget process will bring about some change. Can the Minister give us details of the negotiations that have taken place with the Treasury on the spending review? What opportunities are there for additional funds to come from the review? Once again, I refer to the peace dividend. I accept the Minister’s point that it is not simply a matter of asking for additional funding. However, to make a strong case for additional funding, it is important to be convinced that we need it.
The amount of taxation that is collected here must be shown on the balance sheet. I refer to the earlier question about the aggregates tax and the additional £1·60 per tonne that has been levied on gravel and aggregates. That will not affect the Assembly, but it means that its different schemes will cost more money. More money is going out, and the Assembly will not get any return. The Treasury does not have any qualms about imposing more taxes here. However, we need to get more resources.

Dr Sean Farren: Implicit in my comments on the Barnett formula and the spending review negotiations are the lines that the Executive are pursuing in their discussions with the Treasury. In answer to an earlier question, I explained that our case is strongly based on our analysis of our needs. As I said in my remarks on the Chancellor’s Budget, we have to spend £1·17 here to match the level of investment and standards in England, particularly in health, for every pound spent there. Those fairly straightforward figures give a simple and direct indication of our assessment of the needs.
Given my attempts to reassure the House earlier, the Member should be confident that the Executive are pursuing a vigorous line. In our approach we have included the case for what my party has described as a normalisation dividend.
We must explore more than one possible source of finance; for example, additional funding under the Barnett formula, public-private partnerships and revenue sources over which we have direct control. In particular, we must consider their fairness and adequacy. All those sources pose challenges and provide partial answers.
The block grant allocation under the Barnett formula will always form the most significant slice of our public expenditure cake. However, all the additional sources of funding are being vigorously pursued. I assure my Assembly Colleagues that the Executive are not remiss in considering those sources. I hope that the process will have a fruitful outcome that will be apparent when the spending review allocations are announced in July.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the additional funds that will be made available for public services in Northern Ireland as a result of allocations under the Barnett formula. Given the community’s health needs, I recognise that the funds should be directed to the Health Service, and I would support the Minister’s decision to do so. However, we must also ensure that we maximise the uses and the outcomes of the net result of the increased spending on health. Is the Minister aware that there is concern that the significant increases in funding to date have not resulted in health improvements in our hospitals or communities? Does he think that there is merit in mirroring the Chancellor’s Budget proposals for the independent auditing of health structures? Does he acknowledge that the current auditing of health trusts by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is neither transparent nor accountable? Would he support such a change so that the community can have confidence in how our money is spent?

Dr Sean Farren: It is important to acknowledge that a significant additional allocation to our Health Service is pending as a result of the consequential money that the Chancellor announced last week. An additional sum of £2·7 billion is significant and welcome.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety would be better able to provide a detailed response on the need to ensure that additional and existing finance for the Health Service is spent effectively. Although the language may be slightly different, we should acknowledge that the needs and effectiveness evaluations that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and several other bodies are conducting will provide evidence to account for about 75% of our public expenditure.
As the title suggests, these exercises are intended to address how effectively we spend what we allocate. What return do the people of Northern Ireland get from the vast amount of public money invested in these services, which includes the Health Service? The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is aware of the need to assure the public about the effectiveness with which her budget is spent.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the Minister’s announcement and also his determination to battle for resources to make up the difference in spending levels between here and England. Can the Minister outline the implications of not securing extra funds through the Barnett formula to make up the differential in the future?

Dr Sean Farren: In one sense the answer to that question can be put fairly simply — we would have much less to spend on all services. However, when we take into account the Minister for Regional Development’s regional transport strategy, the need for significant improvements to our water services, the requirements that will undoubtedly follow from whatever recommendations and proposals come from the acute hospitals review, the proposals for investment that will come from any reorganisation of our educational services, and so on, we must acknowledge the deficit that would exist. I said in my statement that there would be a deficit of some £6 billion, and the investment that would be possible, were that to be available to us, would simply not take place.
That imposes a strong obligation on all Members — and they have the opportunity to do this in the various Committees on which they serve — to address the needs, to assess where the investment is likely to come from and to help to make the choices that will have to be made when we know what will be available to meet all those needs. Indeed, if we do not succeed in achieving all that we want to achieve from the investment available to us, Members should help to explain what choices have to be made — why certain choices will be made and others will not be made — with regard to all that we demand for the maintenance and development of our public services.

Mr Mark Robinson: The Minister indicated in his statement that for every £1 spent on health in England, £1·17 would need to be spent to deliver a service of the same standard in Northern Ireland. Can he indicate what the comparative figure for transport is?

Dr Sean Farren: I do not have the precise detail that the Member requests. I would have thought that the most immediate source for the answer to that question should be the Minister for Regional Development. Nonetheless, I will commit myself to providing the evidence of the needs in transport services — in roads and all the services associated with transport.
I am aware of the considerable deficit in infrastructural needs and the considerable investment that is required in the whole of our transport sector and its infrastructure. I am also aware of the general plans that the Minister has put out for public consultation in his regional transport strategy. I will be meeting with the Minister in the near future. Undoubtedly, we will be addressing not only transport needs but also the needs that he has identified for the development of the Water Service. He has impressed on me the considerable investment needs that exist there. He said that we need to put all the options relating to sources of revenue that might help us to meet those investment needs fairly and squarely before the public.

Mr Alex Maskey: I thank the Minister for the clarity with which he has put many of these important matters to the Assembly. I welcome the fact that the Minister has dissociated the Executive from the hype around the Budget announcement last week and, secondly, that he will recommend that all consequential moneys should go directly to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I thank him for that announcement.
Given the focus on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the lack of spending on health over many years, health will feature largely in this debate. In the light of that, will the Minister reassert the comments that he made in his statement that, notwithstanding the amount contained there, if we allocate only the additional amounts we will struggle to maintain the Health Service in its present highly unsatisfactory state? Does the Minister agree that that is a startling statement in its own right?

Dr Sean Farren: I am not sure what particular weight would be carried by the reiteration of what I have already stressed, directly or indirectly, several times. Given that I have been before the Assembly for almost an hour, I am sure that Members are tired of my voice, so I will spare them the reiteration. However, I reassure the Member that I believe what I said.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Minister not share my alarm at the constant reference to pressure from the Treasury? Does he not agree that that pressure is tantamount to blackmail? Should the Treasury not be looking at the needs of the people of Northern Ireland, rather than bullying the Executive? Should the Executive not be fighting for the needs of the people of Northern Ireland, rather than allowing themselves to succumb to that pressure and blackmail?
Does the Minister not further agree that the reference to this Budget as a "Budget for enterprise" is rather contradicted by the 1% increase through the tax for jobs, as represented by the National Insurance contribution imposed on employers? Does the Minister agree, given that the backbone of Northern Ireland’s economy is small and medium-sized enterprises, that this further tax on jobs will make it more difficult, if not impossible, to follow through with increases in rates, water rates and such other measures as the Minister has referred to?

Dr Sean Farren: I could join with the Member in saying that the increase in National Insurance contributions is unwelcome for the business community here. However, I have pointed out that there are other aspects of the Budget that will benefit businesses. To assess fully the Budget’s impact on business, it must be looked at in its overall terms rather than focusing on specific items.
Mr Close made a point about pressure. He must appreciate that the pressure from the Treasury is matched by the pressure from here. Pressure is a way of describing how forcefully we put forward an argument — and we are putting forward a very strong argument on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland by demonstrating the scale of need. That is what it is all about. It is not a question of simply accepting the Barnett allocation without making our case in the strongest possible terms.
I doubt whether my predecessor and I could have been more forceful in presenting the approach that we are adopting to the House. If all the comments on this subject are checked in Hansard, it will be seen that we have been expressing the case based on need very forcibly; and we are bringing that case to the Treasury. The case is being vigorously pursued at political level and more regularly at official level.
The Member may doubt my words; he has the luxury of doubting them because he is not present when the negotiations are under way. However, I ask him to accept that I mean what I say when I say that we are pursuing the case very vigorously indeed.
The word "pressured" may be a way of describing the Treasury’s response; for example, when we are asked to examine the sources of revenue that we control. The Member will know that we have undertaken preparation for public consultation of the rating system in a very concerted and detailed way. As a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, he knows that the issue has been going through a considerable gestation period, and that we are close, in terms of internal debate. The internal debate has involved all members of the Executive, including the Ministers who do not attend Executive meetings. They are fully aware of the issues that have to be addressed, and they believe that the issues need to be addressed vigorously.
The Minister for Regional Development has made it clear to me, in correspondence and in face-to-face discussion, that he agrees that we should address all those potential sources of revenue, and put the options fairly and squarely before the people so that they know what they are, the choices that have to be made, and the consequences of not making certain choices. [Interruption].
Yes, indeed, and before the Member pursues the issue too far, he might take it up with the Minister for Regional Development. Ask him precisely what he said to me in his written communications and what he has said to me in face-to-face discussions. I am not saying this in order to cast aspersions but to make clear the issues and the deep appreciation that exists.
Mr Paisley may think that it is a matter for some mirth, but delivering good, effective and efficient public services for the people of Northern Ireland is a very serious matter. That is what the Executive is about, and I am attempting, as Minister, to make clear to the public what is needed to achieve those objectives. I trust that he will have that detailed conversation with his Colleague, the Minister for Regional Development.

Rev Robert Coulter: I welcome the Minister’s statement and his efforts to acquire more finance for Northern Ireland.
In view of the deficit of confidence in the community, will the Minister ensure that the extra money will be directed through the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to specific patient needs? Will spending be independently audited and improvements monitored?
The Minister mentioned the exploration of many possibilities in his statement. However, no mention was made of the possibility of savings on administration. Given that an extra layer of administration involving over 300 people has just been added, will there be any monitoring of the money spent in that area?
Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister for Regional Development on the scale of investment required in the Water Service and on any plans he has to meet that need?

Dr Sean Farren: I addressed part of the Member’s question in my previous response. I have had correspondence and a detailed discussion with the Minister for Regional Development. That discussion was helpful. The issues to which the Member referred were addressed in a serious and detailed way. There was a realisation that the challenge for the Water Service, for example, will require significant investment. If I have correctly recalled the Minister for Regional Development’s advice, about £3 billion will be needed in the next 10 to 15 years, much of which must be spent in the next five years. Therefore all the options must be addressed fully and frankly with the public so that we appreciate the kind of choices that are before us and the consequences of taking certain choices and not taking others.
We have an obligation to present all the possibilities to the public. It would be dishonest to do otherwise. Let the public debate, let MLAs debate, let the Committees debate, and let them all advise on the way forward. That applies not only to the Department that the Member highlighted, but to all Departments, some of which have significantly greater spending requirements. It is important that, as we move away from a society that was characterised politically by what I would describe as "demand" politics, we move to "responsibility" politics. We shall demand high-quality services and the best infrastructure, because that is what our people deserve. However, we must do so responsibly; we must be aware of the choices that have to be made and the resources that are required to meet those choices. We must not run away from the hard issues. That is not what the Executive are in business for. They are in business to point out our aims and objectives, and what is required to meet them.
My answer to the Member’s comments on the Health Service is covered in my reference to the needs and evaluation exercises that are being undertaken so that we have the assurance that what is provided by way of investment, capital or otherwise, is done effectively and efficiently and to the highest possible standards.

Mr John Dallat: The Minister said that since devolution more money has gone to health than the Barnett formula allowed. Will he elaborate on that? Does the Minister believe that the Minister of Health can now get on with managing the Health Service?

Dr Sean Farren: Approximately £190million extra — over and above the Barnett allocation — has been made available to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety over the past three Budgets. I am subject to correction on that.

A Member: It was £192 million.

Dr Sean Farren: Thank you. That is a significant additional amount. We have done that because we recognise that there has been serious underinvestment. We recognise the extent of existing needs. Those who visit our hospitals and those who work in the Health Service are also aware of the scale and location of pressing need. That is what we have done to demonstrate that health must remain a priority. Although the additional allocations lend scope for significant improvement over the next five years, they cannot meet our needs. We will continue to make that case because that is what the evidence tells us. At least there is now the prospect of a significant advance in delivering high-quality service that speedily meets the requirements of everyone in need, particularly in the Health Service.
I recognise and pay tribute to all those who are providing services in our hospitals and to the Health Service generally. More can be done with additional resources, and I want to believe that more will be done.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that this is probably the most serious statement that he will ever make from the Dispatch Box? He is saying that spending the money that is being allocated through the Budget now can only keep the Health Service at its current deplorable standard.
The abject reality is that if we allocate only the additional amounts that we receive under the Barnett formula, we will struggle to maintain the Health Service in its present highly unsatisfactory state. Every Member is aware of the unsatisfactory state of the Health Service. The amount of money that has been cheered on by Back-Benchers in the House of Commons may be seen when it is applied — if it is applied properly — to relieve the deplorable inconsistencies of the Health Service in England, but that will not meet the need in Northern Ireland. The Minister reckoned in his statement that if we took all this money and the extra that we would get in the Barnett domain and put it all together, we would not have sufficient funds to deal with the Health Service. We would have enough money only to maintain it in its current deplorable state.
Therefore, it is a serious statement.
Surely the Minister’s representation must state that other public services in our country are not in a good state. The rest of the United Kingdom, and especially England, has trouble with transport, and we have trouble with transport. All the other Departments are also in serious trouble, not only in maintaining what they are doing but also in trying to remedy the tremendous and awful hole that they have dug. The Minister tells us that for every £1 spent on health in England, £1·17 is required here. He tells us that an additional £300 million a year is needed to match England’s spending on health.
I am glad that the Minister has been honest with the House. I am glad that the bald facts are being set out plainly. I am glad that the Minister is telling the British Government that they are selling us cheap and trying to get away with fraud. We shall be unable to maintain an advantage for our Health Service; we shall be able to maintain it only in its current condition — and we all know the deplorable state of the Health Service. Other public services are also crying out for help. However, as the Minister has said, if one service cannot be cured properly, what is the point of putting money into it if it can be maintained only in its current state?

Mr Jim Wilson: Dr Paisley, I am not sure that I have heard a question. Do you have a question for the Minister?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The whole thing is a question, and I think that the Minister knows that. Does the Minister think that throwing large sums of public money at dissatisfactory aspects of the Health Service, or any public service, will remedy the situation? Public services require radical surgery so that they have the staff and the ability to cope.

Dr Sean Farren: I thank Dr Paisley for his contribution, although I was beginning to wonder if I had lost my job. Nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that he acknowledges my honesty, and I trust that that honesty will be acknowledged in the House and beyond, because, as a Member of the Executive, I believe that we must put the facts and the situation, which the Member described graphically, before our people. I agree with much that he says, but I am not someone who curses the darkness. Rather, I acknowledge the opportunity to achieve the progress that is necessary for investment in all public services.
The Member referred to the need to address public services generally. The review of public administration that is under way will address many of the issues that are implicit in the Member’s reference to public services. We have some additional resources for health, although, as I have underlined often, they are insufficient. We will ensure that those resources are allocated and invested effectively, and I am sure that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety would wish to express her intention to ensure that that happens so that improvements will be made.
However, we continue the battle and the debate with the Treasury. In addition, we commit ourselves to considering to what extent our own sources of revenue are administered fairly and whether they adequately meet some of our needs. They will never meet all of our needs, but they can contribute to doing so. We will continue to explore other possibilities. We can complain that the money is insufficient, but I am not one to be churlish or to curse the darkness. I accept and welcome the implications of the allocations and the opportunities that they provide, but I will fulfil my responsibility to point out that we need much, much more.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. I hope that he has lit a candle, rather than cursed the darkness. Does the Minister agree that it is a well-established phenomenon that when any organisation, company, or even country, receives a large sum of additional money to spend in a short period, often that money is, perforce, used inefficiently in the circumstances? The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel asked whether there was a strong case for independently auditing the extra spending, particularly on health.
Secondly, is there not also a strong case for educating the expectations of the public? In many cases it will take several years, perhaps four or five, to appoint new personnel in order to achieve outcomes from the additional health spending.
The Minister said that there was a Barnett consequential of approximately £0·5million relating to the Investors in People spending in Great Britain. Given the Minister’s implication that all the consequential funding relating to additional health spending in Great Britain will be spent on health in Northern Ireland, should not the £0·5million relating to the consequential from the Department of Education and Skills be earmarked for the Department for Employment and Learning?

Dr Sean Farren: Dr Birnie is the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, so I appreciate why he makes that point. We will be considering which services will receive additional allocations as the result of the consequential funding that he highlighted. There is a significant challenge to inform the public about matters that affect our public expenditure, such as the funds that are available and how they can be acquired.
I trust that Members will contribute significantly to promoting greater understanding of the constraints under which we operate, through their approaches to issues such as those in my statement, when making departmental allocations and in their work outside the Chamber.
I accept the point that we may need more external arrangements for auditing. There are mechanisms in place, but I assume that Rev Robert Coulter was referring to a mechanism that would be closer to the Departments. The Committees have an important scrutiny role, although they may need expertise to help them to carry it out. They have that responsibility; they have been contributing to scrutiny; and they will continue to do so. The Executive will give serious consideration to this.

Mr Alban Maginness: I congratulate the Minister on his cogent, comprehensive and honest statement. I note Rev Dr Ian Paisley’s comments that it was also a serious statement. It is a timely reminder about the grave situation that we face with regard to public expenditure. The Minister said that we will require approximately £6 billion in extra funding over the next 10 years.
The Minister and his Department are trying to negotiate a reformulation of Barnett with the Treasury, and Members should support that. However, that is not solely the Minister’s responsibility. It is the collective responsibility of the House and the Executive. If a reformulation of Barnett that is beneficial to Northern Ireland is achieved, it will improve public services significantly.
Finally, if the Minister fails to get a beneficial reformulation of Barnett, does he have a plan b?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member’s comments are helpful.
The role of a Minister of Finance and Personnel is, in many respects, invidious. The Minister has an overview of all Departments in the Administration and overall responsibility for examining their spending requirements. He must highlight some of the difficulties associated with acquiring and allocating the resources that are available to the Executive. The Member rightly stressed collective responsibility, but the whole Executive cannot speak in chorus.
It falls, therefore, to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to be the Executive’s voice on these matters. Negotiating the Barnett formula is not a process that I am involved in on my own. At present the Executive are fully apprised from meeting to meeting — because the process is under way, because of what is transpiring and because of the emerging possibilities and difficulties. Advice is sought, and the negotiations are essentially led by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
All of my ministerial Colleagues, including those who are not in regular attendance — or any attendance at all — at the Executive meetings, are aware of the issues as they emerge. Their advice, and the advice of the latter, if not available directly to the Executive, is available through correspondence and meetings with me, so that I can ensure that the Executive are fully aware of their needs and circumstances. I am not making any special pleading for the position in which I find myself. I am emphasising my role and responsibility and showing the collective approach that I am taking. The Executive and I are taking forward Members’ concerns and those of the people we represent in the Treasury negotiations in as collective and concerted a way as possible.
With respect to the point that Mr Maginness makes on the Barnett formula, let us not contemplate failure now. Let us not try to predict the end of the race — if that is how Members want to describe the process. It is always tantalising to speculate. The block grant is by far the major source of Northern Ireland’s public expenditure, and we must maximise the allocation of it. As I said at the conclusion of my statement, the understanding and support of Members for the enterprise that we are engaged in on their behalf are deeply appreciated and necessary to reflect — without silencing our different views — and demonstrate support for the objective of achieving the best possible allocation and, therefore, offering the best level of investment in Northern Ireland’s services and infrastructure, which is what the people deserve and expect.

Mr George Savage: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and especially his comments on the small business sector, which is important to Northern Ireland. There are several other sectors in Northern Ireland that were missing from the statement — particularly agriculture — and I hope that that is not deliberate. Perhaps it will be raised on another occasion. It is important that it not be omitted. What incentives are being offered to encourage small businesses to start up self-help schemes? Apart from VAT schemes, what else is being offered? Small businesses are the big businesses of tomorrow.

Dr Sean Farren: The Member has invited me to stray into an area that might be addressed more fully and effectively by his Colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Although the statement focused essentially on the Chancellor’s Budget and its immediate implications for us, especially on health consequentials and other, more minor, consequentials, it is inevitable that the debate is taking on a flavour that allows us to range over other issues. In my statement I welcomed several of those measures.
We are keen to support entrepreneurship and the development of local small and medium-sized enterprises. I am almost echoing what my Colleague Sir Reg Empey would say. Those businesses are at the heart of our economy, and they require considerable support. For the precise answers that are needed to answer the Member’s question on other measures, I must defer to the superior knowledge of Sir Reg Empey.

Mobile Phones

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure the complete implementation of the recommendations made by the independent expert group on mobile phones, as laid out in the Stewart Report, and further, to implement a change in legislation to ensure that no telecommunications masts are constructed within 300 yards of any dwelling without full public consultation. — [Mr Shannon.]

Mr Jim Wilson: I remind Members of the Speaker’s ruling that a maximum of five minutes has been set aside for each contribution.

Mr Seamus Close: I remind Members that confession is good for the soul. With regard to mobile phone technology, I am a Luddite. I neither own one nor rent one nor use one. In that respect, I claim to practise what I preach.
Most Members will recall that, prior to March 1996, the general public was reassured consistently that it was safe to eat beef. Precautionary advice was effectively downgraded, and the Government and so-called experts gave the distinct impression that BSE was not transmissible from an animal to a human being. A certain Government Minister appeared on television alongside a young child who was, presumably voluntarily, eating a beefburger. No doubt that piece of footage was broadcast in order to instil confidence in the message that the so-called experts were promulgating: namely, that it was safe to eat beef.
Most Members will, therefore, remember the deep sense of betrayal that was felt subsequently by the general public when, on 20 March 1996, it was announced that BSE was likely to have been transmitted to human beings. It is now a tragic fact that scores of people have died from variant CJD, and I express my sympathy to the Democratic Unionist Party on the loss of their councillor Mr Hunter as a result of that tragic disease. The link between BSE and variant CJD is now clearly established and is a tragic reality. A key finding of the Phillips Report that examined BSE and CJD was that precautionary measures should be enforced strictly, even if the risk that they addressed appeared to be remote.
Some Members will recall the feeling of wonderment when, accompanied by our parents, we went to shoe shops and were encouraged to stand on large pedestal-type machines to watch the skeleton of our feet move as parents and shop assistants decided what size of shoe we required. That large pedestal-type machine was an X-ray machine. It was considered safe by the so-called experts, and we were subjected to X-rays as a matter of form. How things have changed in 40 years. In hospitals today, X-ray machines are located behind reinforced concrete walls and radiologists don lead-lined vests because the potential dangers of X-rays are now recognised.
I looked at Dr Paisley. No doubt he can recall the days when sheets of asbestos were used in the building and shipbuilding industries, and in other trades. The experts also considered it to be perfectly safe. It was hammered, cut and sawn into all sorts of shapes and nobody gave a toss because it was "safe". The experts of 60 or 70 years ago saw no harm in it. However, we are left facing claims for compensation that run into millions of pounds, and many people’s quality of life is impaired because they suffer from asbestosis.
Are mobile phones, and the technologies associated with them, the equivalent of the asbestos of yesteryear? Are the experts as wrong about mobile phones as they were about the possible health hazards associated with BSE and with X-rays?
When will our society ever learn to put the health of our people at the top of our agenda? When shall we learn to stop taking risks with people’s health because of economic and financial pressures? It strikes me that a greater emphasis is given to what I would call aesthetically environmental concerns, such as siting a mast in an area of outstanding natural beauty, than is given to siting a mast on the top of a school in the middle of a built-up area, on the top of a leisure complex or, as was mentioned earlier, on good agricultural land where emissions enter the food chain. The Stewart Report recommended a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies until more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects is clearly available. That must be our role as legislators. I have seen young children who suffer from leukaemia — we must put them at the top of our agenda.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I support the motion. The issue of mobile masts is an emotional one, and a balance must be struck. On the one hand, there are businesses that wish to generate profit both for the telecommunications companies and for those who have paid huge amounts of money to acquire the licences to operate third-generation phones. Other companies also use telecommunications to improve their businesses and to benefit the wider community by creating more jobs. On the other hand, in the absence of concrete evidence to support the safety of the systems used, it is necessary for legislators to ensure that the general public is kept safe from harm.
A cautious approach should be taken on the issue until proper evidence shows that mobile phone masts are safe. Contrary to many representations made by mobile phone companies to councils and others, there seems to be no such evidence.
We should follow the precautionary approach already indicated by Mr Close and by the Stewart Report. Article 130r of the EU Treaty of Rome (as amended) states that the precautionary principle should be uppermost in the minds of all legislators in the Parliaments of European Union countries. Parliaments are urged to protect not only the environment but, more importantly, the populations therein, especially young children who, due to their low body weight, are likely to be more affected in their growth years by the emissions.
The problem is that the technology is so new that there is little complete research. A few quotations from the ‘Communications Technology in the Community’ conference in March 1998 highlight the absence of a definitive policy on the issue among professionals in radiation and engineering fields. Mr John McAuley said that
"The safest place to be is at the bottom of the mast because the beams go over the top of the head. I won’t comment on the safety of mobile phones or their base stations, just the levels."
He is responsible for most of the non-ionising radiation hazard monitoring carried out in Ireland in recent years. Russell Owen, who is head of the radiation and biology branch of the United States Food and Drug Administration, is noted as saying that the jury is still out. The fact that people in such positions are not clear and unequivocal on the safety of the masts raises questions.
The main thread that runs through all research and through the opinions of independent experts is that although there is nothing positively to identify health problems now, many cancers do not present until there have been many years of exposure. Therefore the problem may start only in the next few years. In the meantime, there should be full public consultation before the erection of masts in controversial urban areas in which there are schools — it may be fair to say that all areas are controversial. Planning departments must respond to genuine local concern and not pay lip service to that aspect of the process.
As I said earlier, the Government will acquire significant finance from the sale of licences. Mobile phone companies will also make huge profits. There is no doubt that many individuals, including landowners and farmers who may diversify in order to receive money from mobile phone companies, will benefit from the erection of the masts — an issue that can be raised with councillors who oppose such schemes. Other companies and organisations in Northern Ireland will also benefit from the income generated by the mobile phone companies. However, it is the duty of each Member to ensure that, although benefits in the form of the accumulation of huge profits are available, the health of this generation and of future generations is not put at risk. I support the motion.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I thank the Member for Strangford for highlighting this important issue, about which complaints will have been received in each of the 18 constituencies. Unlike the Member for Lagan Valley, Mr Close, I am not a Luddite when it comes to mobile phones. I use a mobile phone, which gives my constituents access to me after hours. Although, given that I live in north Belfast, perhaps I should not have bought a mobile phone.
We must focus on the Stewart Report in order to encourage a precautionary approach. Although the legislation is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough. There are several points that we must consider. If we do not introduce legislation to implement safety zones for masts, we are not adopting the necessary precautionary approach, and Members must realise that.
Telecommunications companies approach sports organisations, such as tennis and bowling clubs, in the knowledge that they may be short of funding. They offer the clubs money in exchange for permission to erect a mast. A similar situation has occurred with Irish League football clubs. It is the responsibility of the committees that run such clubs to recognise that they may be situated in built-up areas in which children may play for long periods. When researching his report, Sir William Stewart studied schools because that was where he felt that children were for most of the day. However, Members can identify places in their constituencies where there are children about for many hours during the day.
If we do not recommend that an independent agency be set up to investigate the health complaints that result from the use of telecommunications equipment such as the masts or the telephones that are used by children, that will be a waste of legislation. Any Member who thinks that full planning legislation will resolve the issue is fooling himself or herself.
We all know that it is difficult to persuade the Planning Service to refuse permission, even when the community and the councillors are agreed that the application is wrong. Those of us who have served on councils know that particularly well, and we must be careful about that approach to solving the problem.
An independent agency must be funded by the mobile phone companies as well as by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The situation must be checked every three years. Boyd Douglas was right to say that there is very little information on mobile phones because the technology is new. We need to update our knowledge regularly to ensure that mobile phones do not pose an increasing health risk.
The Minister should have come to the Assembly to make a statement instead of giving it to the media. Having read the statement, I thought that the Minister was defending the service even in the event of there being a health risk. He said that a health warning should be given but that it is important that we have high standards in telecommunications. Of course those high standards are important. I have said already that I am a mobile phone user, and I want to ensure that we have the best technology, because that will ensure that we attract companies that will provide jobs. However, we must also look at the disadvantages. If there are health risks, we must accept that and ensure that we protect people from those risks. Belfast City Council has decided not to allow any masts to be erected on its property. Other people will have to consider that option if the legislation does not go far enough.
I remind the Minister that the proposal for full planning implementation will not resolve the problem. The only way to resolve the matter is to establish an independent agency that will check the health risks. Zones must be established to enable us to move masts away from certain areas, and several other health checks must be put in place. Without those, full planning implementation will not resolve the problem.

Ms Jane Morrice: I support the motion. I welcome the new legislation that the Minister announced, but I agree that it should come before the Assembly, because there are many questions that we must ask on behalf of our constituents. Answers are needed, and fears must be allayed.
What happens to the masts that are already in place and the masts for which planning applications have already been submitted? There is no proper understanding of how the legislation will have an impact retrospectively. As the Minister knows, people are alarmed that mobile phone masts have been erected under prior planning approval without neighbourhood notification. That is a serious matter. The planning advertisements for the masts have been tucked away in small print on the back pages of local newspapers where people do not see them. Is that "consultation"?
In response to those concerns, the Women’s Coalition is calling for an immediate review of the masts that have already been erected under prior planning approval and for an end to that practice. Neighbourhood notification and consultation must take place.
In my constituency of North Down, a mast has recently been erected on the High Donaghadee Road. I am not a great judge of distance, but I believe that it is no more than 50 metres away from housing and a children’s playground. I understand that in Russia masts must be 2,000 metres away from housing. I agree with the call for safety zones. Some 35 masts have already been erected in the north Down area, and a further 14 sites have been proposed. What are we doing about that? In south Belfast, residents from the Belvoir estate approached Monica McWilliams because they were not consulted about the erection of a mast on the top of their building, which is owned by the Housing Executive.
Since that mast went up, residents have complained of headaches and nausea. The same problem exists with Breda flats, a location also owned by the Housing Executive. Then there is McCracken Memorial Church, for which a public petition has already been lodged with the Assembly, and Lagan Meadows. All Members have had complaints from people in constituencies throughout Northern Ireland. In Omagh, Beragh is where there is serious concern — despite objections planners have granted permission for the erection of a mast. Also the area near a primary school in Richill is causing serious concern. These are just some examples of the issues we have been approached on.
I agree with Mr Kennedy who said it is disappointing that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not here to hear the concerns of Members. We should be agreeing distances from residential housing, children’s schools and playgrounds for the erection of masts. Masts are not tested in the way that pharmaceutical drugs are tested and monitored, and Séamus Close, Billy Hutchinson and Boyd Douglas mentioned this succinctly. We need monitoring here. Our acceptable levels of low pulse microwave radiation are much higher than those in Canada, for example. Greater studies are needed of the dangers involved so that the health concerns not only of the masts but of the phones themselves are properly addressed.
Finally, I want to touch on money. We hear about clubs, et cetera, being given money for renting their property for masts. If masts are being put up on land owned by the Department for Regional Development or the Department of the Environment, can the Ministers tell us how much money is being paid for this use of footpaths and so on?

Rev William McCrea: As Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment I support the motion. As Members know, the Department has been considering what to do about the planning issues with mobile phone masts since issuing a consultation document in November 2000. My Committee studied that document closely. We gave earnest consideration to the matters contained in it and issued a comprehensive response to the Department on 5 April 2001 after taking evidence from a wide range of parties. Our response included significant recommendations, one of which was to introduce full planning permission for the installation, alteration, and replacement of all mobile phone masts and associated structures.
We also recommended introducing appropriate references to the Human Rights Act 1998 into policy planning statement 10 (PPS 10), which is guidance used by planners when considering applications for mobile phone masts. We also suggested introducing discretionary measures such as exclusion zones of up to 500 metres, which actually goes further than the motion, a hierarchy of preferred sites for masts that avoid locations near residential areas and schools and some form of incentives to encourage mast-sharing.
The Committee welcomed the Minister of the Environment’s announcement in July 2001 that he intended to introduce legislative changes, which would require full planning permission for all new mobile phone masts. After some delay and prevarication from the Department, my Committee is at last looking at the proposed changes to the legislation and the revised PPS 10 document. I must add that we took grave exception to the fact that the Department clearly had plans to go public on both the legislation and the new PPS 10 without any further consultation with the Committee. Although some might say that this was an oversight, it was due only to the intervention of staff from the Committee secretariat that the Committee and, subsequently, the House was told of the Department’s plans on this important legislation before everyone else.
What has the Department asked us now? The Committee has had officials before it for the past two weeks — and they have been invited again this week — to explain the contents of the proposed legislation and the PPS 10. Members should note that although the proposed legislation will come before the House in the form of a negative resolution, the PPS 10 has been published already without the Committee’s having been able to comment on its contents. To date, we have been able to consider only the proposed legislation, and we have had plenty to say about that.
The Committee’s proper and full consideration of the PPS 10 is about to start. Although I do not want to anticipate the views or opinions of the Committee, initial consideration has not left me with much confidence that the Department has even tried to address the serious health concerns of the Northern Ireland public on the siting of masts. Sir William Stewart concluded that there can be an indirect adverse effect on people’s well-being in some cases, and that
"the possibility of harm could not be ruled out with confidence and that the gaps in knowledge were sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."
I can find little evidence reflecting these concerns in the document before us. Instead, the Department’s approach seems to be to continue to pass the buck on health issues to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the basis of scientific readings of emissions against International Commission guidelines. This appears to ignore genuine public fears and health concerns about masts whether emissions fall below international standards or not. The Committee will consider this point and others in more detail.
I do not wish to pre-empt any consideration by the Environment Committee, but the House can be assured that we will do everything to ensure that people have the mobile phone service they need — we must accept that this is required — as well as the appropriate level of protection and proper consultation on the siting of mobile phone masts, which is equally needed. I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr George Savage: I welcome this debate and support it to a certain extent, because this is an important issue. As I often do, I would like to introduce an agricultural note. When I read the report by Sir William Stewart on mobile phones and the siting of radio masts, I found the same precautionary approach advocated that was taken too late with the BSE crisis. We should put the brakes on these masts until we have proof that they are safe. That is the prudent thing to do. If we had been prudent at the beginning of the BSE crisis, it would never have assumed the proportions it did.
Stewart wrote of the "subtle biological changes" caused by masts and said that the effects of these changes were not clear. In the absence of clarity, we should take precautions. We have a model for action in the Scottish Parliament, our sister Assembly. Its legislation is the strictest in the United Kingdom: all phone masts, both above and below 15 metres high, require full planning permission and so are subject to the full rigours of the planning process and public consultation. A similar measure here is the least we can expect in the light of mounting public concern.
I want to see a freeze on all new masts, particularly those sited near schools. I want to see some kind of intervention to stop or suspend the operation of radio masts erected before any new and more stringent legislation comes into force, which we may introduce. I have heard all the arguments about retrospective legislation, but they hold no water when public health is, or may be, at risk. The safety of the public must be a primary guide for lawmakers. The operation of phone masts, erected under prior, less stringent planning rules must be suspended. Much thought must go into this before there is any proof of safety.
I am concerned about a mast in County Armagh that was erected without any public consultation. In this day and age that is not good enough. It has been the cause of much public concern, and the public has a right to be heard. I always support the public on health matters.
The recipe is simple — a freeze on contentious existing masts, the full planning process for all new masts and a ban on all masts near schools, houses and hospitals until the research gives us clear answers one way or the other. That is the right way for us to proceed.
Phones are very important, and I can give examples. Two weeks ago there was a car accident on a very quiet road, and no one saw it happen. A car went over the hedge and rolled four or five times down the field. If the young girl in the car had not had a mobile phone, she would have been burnt to death because the car was about to go on fire. People came from about three miles away to rescue the girl. There are pluses and minuses.
When our local vet was out on call recently, an emergency call came through, and he was able to be on the spot within two minutes. Doctors can respond likewise. Mobile phones are essential. However, the Minister has a great deal of responsibility in relation to where the masts are sited. I do not want to press him too much, but the onus is on him and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Members of the Assembly cannot take this decision lightly.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr P J Bradley: Since my election, and that of other Members, to the Assembly in 1998, no other issue that I have dealt with can match the public concern expressed about the long-term unknown implications of the erection of telecommunications masts throughout Northern Ireland. No one in a position of responsibility has yet arrived at, or expressed, a positive view regarding the health fears that exist because of the nature of the masts. Jane Morrice has already mentioned the health fears in relation to the phones themselves.
I am sure that all 108 Members of the Assembly have been lobbied about mobile phones. Some will probably have been lobbied more than others — particularly those who represent rural areas where the masts are being erected. People in towns may not be as aware of the masts as those in rural areas.
There are masts in my area in Glassdrumman outside Annalong, Killowen outside Rostrevor, Ballyholland outside Newry and Barnmeen near Rathfriland. I want to speak most about the one at the Corgary/Beech Hill area of Newry. The Minister is aware of the concerns of the Corgary and Beech Hill residents, and I thank him for meeting them at short notice and giving them a fair and reasonable hearing. I share their concerns.
The Sheepbridge area of the main A1 road about four of fives miles north of Newry has a plethora of masts. One lady that I know looks out on five masts from her home. She has a small family, and it is impossible to understand her concerns unless one lives there. When she looks through every window she can see a mast.
The Minister is early into his portfolio, and I thank him for taking the concerns on board, and for the recent legislation that he has introduced. I hope that it is another step in addressing the concerns; it is not the final decision.
I support the motion. However, in doing so, I point out that in accepting the 300-yard limit referred to in Mr Shannon’s motion, I am in no way putting that before the wishes of Newry and Mourne District Council, which I serve on.
For more than two years, Newry and Mourne District Council has continued to recommend an exclusion zone of 500 metres, and that remains my preference. I accept the motion without compromising my role as a Newry and Mourne councillor or its view on the preferred exclusion zone. The debate is timely, but we have other things to do. Every day our work is being taken up by the subject of telecommunications masts.
The biggest single problem is that the owners of the masts have money, while the protestors do not. The owners have access to Queen’s Counsel, King’s Counsel and every kind of counsel under the sun. However, the people protesting do not have any money to fight them. It is as simple as that. Councils can be sympathetic, but they do not have the money to fight the telecommunications providers. I support the motion.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Although I support the motion, I have to ask the Minister why he did not include a statutory safe zone, which would have meant setting down a criterion that all masts should be built 500 metres from any dwelling, residence, hospital, school or commercial property.
We all know about the growing evidence linking cancer rates to mobile phones and masts. Although nothing is conclusive, why take the risk of bringing in weak legislation? The long-term health effects of non-ionising radiation being emitted from mobile phone masts has yet to be fully ascertained. The Minister should have adopted the requirement of the Maastricht treaty, which introduces a precautionary principle. Masts should be sited away from schools, hospitals and homes as a precaution. Children, because of their size, act as resonant aerials. Therefore siting masts close to schools increases the risk to children.
The Minister of the Environment, Dermot Nesbitt, has failed to develop an approach that will protect communities. The criteria proposed will not protect people’s health and safety. We must take on board the general public’s uncertainty and fear of potential health problems.
Masts sited on farms by contract with the telecommunications companies do not give a farmer a get-out clause when there are objections by the local community, and this is causing ill feeling and dissension in local communities.
I know that the Minister has taken on board the issue of the mast at Jerrettspass. I hope that it will be relocated. Does he understand the concerns of Jerrettspass residents, and that in order to relocate the mast, he should take into consideration the recommendation of Newry and Mourne District Council that it should be located 500m away from homes and dwellings?
There are many points to be taken on board. I recognise that the Minister is considering a change in the legislation. However, it is important that all new masts, regardless of size, should require full planning permission. It is unfortunate that the changes in the legislation are not retrospective. There will be a great rush of planning applications for phone masts. Full planning permission only requires that two criteria be taken into consideration. The first is domestic amenity — the effect of a proposed mast on property value. The second is land form — the impact on the appearance of an area. Even then, objections on either ground will not guarantee that a planning application would be rejected. There is an absolute requirement for planning to take into consideration the concerns of the community.
Several countries, such as Australia and Russia, have statutory safe zones. That means that no phone mast can be built within 500 metres to 2,000 metres of any residential dwelling or commercial property.
There is growing evidence linking cancer rates to mobile phones and phone masts. While nothing is conclusive, we should not take risks by bringing in weak planning legislation. We are moving into the third generation of transmitters where masts such as the new BT Tetra mast are four times stronger than many of the early phone masts, and we need to be very careful.
We also need to tighten up the legislation around the monitoring of microwaves from phone masts. There is no point monitoring the output of a single mast. We need to monitor the output of mast networks to look at the compounding of microwaves, and we need to measure the impact inside dwellings, not just at source. Legislation is to be brought in by Statutory Rule; therefore, it will not be scrutinised as thoroughly as a Bill.
In conclusion, if the mobile base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure —

Mr Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Mr Mick Murphy: — the planning authority will not have to give any further consideration to the health aspects of the station.

Mr Jim Wells: This is without doubt the most controversial planning issue in my constituency of South Down. I am aware of 15 contentious masts in the constituency, all of which are opposed by residents’ groups. I have attended meetings about most of them, and the clear message is that many constituents feel that the legislation does not go far enough. The vast majority of objections to masts are based on health concerns, and nowhere in the proposed legislation is there a definite commitment that those concerns will be taken on board. Amenity and traffic are taken into account but not health. Until that bridge is crossed, the public will be most concerned.
There is a solution to this problem, and it has not been suggested by any of the Members who spoke in the debate. There are sufficient telephone masts in Northern Ireland to cover all the needs of the telecommunications industry. The fundamental problem is not that there are not enough masts but that there are five companies that all want to have their own masts serving small areas. It is rather like Northern Ireland Electricity and four other companies being given the right to supply electricity in the Province and having five sets of poles and five sets of wires, when we know that we need only one set of poles and one set of wires.
The simple solution to the problem is to say that there is no need for any further masts in Northern Ireland and to force the present companies to share bandwidth. If I travel through Europe my mobile phone will roam from one mobile phone mast to another and one mobile phone company to another. When I come home I will get an itemised bill that will have five or six different companies on it because of the iniquitous roaming charges. They will all charge me for the use of their masts because my phone can roam on to the strongest signal available. We should force the mobile phone companies in Northern Ireland to adopt a similar policy. If I were in Annalong and could not get a signal on the Orange mast, I could roam on to the Vodafone mast, pick up a signal and use that. I have been to site meetings where companies have insisted that they need a mast, but then my mobile phone rings, and I discover that there are a full five bars on some other company such as Orange or Cellnet. There is, therefore, already full provision for that area by one mobile phone company, and another company wants to duplicate that coverage. There is no need whatsoever for it, and we simply cannot tolerate a further proliferation of masts.
Four companies have been established in Northern Ireland, with Hutchison 3G coming along. The Republic’s phone company, Eircom, also wants to establish itself in Northern Ireland. We could have six companies wanting six sets of masts. That is absolute nonsense and is not required. Some cognisance should be taken of the special situation in Northern Ireland. In England it is perfectly possible to site a phone mast 500 yards away from the nearest occupied dwelling. In fact, you could site it three miles away from the nearest occupied dwelling because of the nucleated form of settlement in England and Wales.
However, the dispersed rural community in Northern Ireland makes it difficult to find a dwelling in the lowlands that is not within 300 metres of a mast. If we forced telecommunications companies to roam within bandwidths and to share bandwidths, the problem would not exist.
I wish to raise two other issues that are especially relevant to South Down. I am concerned about a recent proposal to install a telephone mast in a grain silo. That is an unacceptable attempt to disguise the mast. Phone masts should not be permitted because they are hidden behind other buildings; they must be considered on the basis of their impact on health.
In a more insidious example in Annalong, about which I wrote to the Minister, a telephone company described its application to erect a telephone mast as an installation of telephone communications apparatus. Local residents who read the Planning Service advertisement in the newspaper were none the wiser and assumed that the application concerned a switchbox, but it was to erect a mast. All advertisements sanctioned by the Planning Service must be accurate. Local residents must know exactly what is being considered and should not be hoodwinked about plans for their area.
In summary, health issues must be considered in the legislation, and companies must be forced to share bandwidth to ensure that there is no further need for controversial mast applications, which create so many problems and so much work for Members.

Mr Billy Armstrong: A modern communications system creates massive benefits for people, including industry and businesses. The use of mobile phones has increased dramatically in Northern Ireland in the past few years. We have enjoyed the convenience of mobile phones; however, we are also concerned about the location of telecommunication masts. It is vital that masts are designed and sited sensitively, so that their environmental impact is minimised. There are too many telecommunications companies, and we must encourage them to share masts. There is much public concern about the possible health effects associated with mobile phone technology, and the tougher planning control of mobile phone masts would be a major step towards tackling the issue that affects my constituency of Mid Ulster and the whole of Northern Ireland.
The planning recommendations in the Stewart Report, which was carried out by an independent expert group on mobile phones, have taken into account the fears of the public about the erection of masts close to built-up areas, schools and hospitals. Those fears must be addressed, and more stringent planning controls would help to do that. Although we cannot confirm the exact risk to those who live close to base stations, a full template of protocols for the erection of masts is needed. In addition, there must be an ongoing report detailing the position of all masts across the country, and an audit of each site to ensure that companies continue to comply with the agreed specifications and exposure guidelines. I welcome the recent planning policy statement on the matter, which will help to develop legislation to introduce the full planning control of mobile phone operators’ telecommunications developments.
Mobile phones have been in our pockets for nearly 15 years, although they used to weigh almost as much as a brick. If mobile phone operators had foreseen the popularity of such a necessary device, could satellite systems not have been introduced? The cost of satellite technology would have been redeemed ten times over, and I presume that it would have been a superior and healthier system.
We live in an electronic age. Although mobile phones were once a luxury, they are now a necessity, not only for ourselves, but for teenage, and younger, children; health considerations are, therefore, paramount. The Stewart Report recognises the lack of research on mobile phone radiation and its health effects. Therefore, it would be wise to take a precautionary approach until more research is carried out. It is important that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety takes this issue seriously and gives good advice on the matter. Mobile phone manufacturers must be encouraged to ensure that the health of all users and those living close to masts are guaranteed. I recommend the report to the House.

Mr Alban Maginness: Unlike Mr Close, I do have a mobile phone, which was forced upon me.

Mr Speaker: I trust that it is switched off?

Mr Alban Maginness: It is switched off, Mr Speaker. I would not dare to come in here with it on. The SDLP press officer forced me to get one. I resisted for many years, but in the end I gave in. The press officer refused to do anything for me unless I obtained a mobile phone.
We depend on mobile phones, and there is a price to pay — there must be telephone masts, otherwise we will not have a system. However, the UK Government received such a bonanza from mobile phone licences that they were prepared to concede the most lax rules and regulations governing the installation of masts. Therefore, we have the system of prior approval.
I agree with my Colleagues that the matter has caused great public concern. In my constituency, North Belfast, there seems to have been a plethora of applications, possibly because of the elevated topography of the Antrim Road. They have been met by stout resistance from the residents, and rightly so, because the jury is out on the health implications of the masts. Until we receive an independent assessment of the health risk, it is not right for parents or the public to endure the invisible risks of these masts.
There must be stricter regulations. I am glad that the Minister is introducing legislation to put stricter regulations into effect. I do not know how far it will go, but I emphasise to him the importance of looking retrospectively on masts that are already in place and that could be changed. That dimension must be considered carefully when legislation is being prepared. There may be changes to the type of equipment currently in place: it could be made stronger or deadlier; we just do not know. There must be regulations to control that aspect. Although permission has been obtained to erect masts in the past, companies cannot be allowed to retain masts or change them at will.
We must adopt a precautionary approach. We must take on board the findings of the Stewart Report, and we must safeguard the health of our children and the population. Masts should not be situated near schools, housing estates or residential areas.
It is time to introduce tough legislation, which the Minister has promised. It is to be hoped that that legislation will genuinely restrict operators who are only interested in profit and not in the health implications for the majority of our citizens.
I agree with Mr Billy Armstrong who mentioned mast-sharing. There is no reason why companies should not share masts. That is one of the criteria used to determine prior approval.
Unfortunately, it was ignored in the past; I hope that it will not be ignored in future.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I have listened to the debate with genuine interest, and I thank the Members who have remained to hear its conclusion.
The Administration represents partnership and trying to work together both politically, in the institution, and with the community. Members may ask why I am promoting partnership. People, with the possible exception of Mr Close, want mobile phones; the telecommunications industry wants to provide masts; and the Department of the Environment wants to facilitate the provision of masts in a way that is conducive to the environment and allows people to use mobile phones. To satisfy those requirements, all the players must work in partnership. I trust that the Assembly, the Department of the Environment and others will be responsive and realistic in providing the required combination.
When the Stewart Report was published in 2000, the Department initiated a full, comprehensive, public consultation, which took into account all the planning implications of the report. The consultation was wide, and those who made submissions to it expressed conflicting views — it would not have been a genuine consultation otherwise. After that consultation the then Minister, Mr Foster, proposed options to the Executive on 6 June 2001. The matter was fully discussed at an Executive meeting on 14 June 2001 and was made public the following day. The Department stated that it would opt for full planning permission and that a planning policy statement would be created in conjunction with full planning. Mr Foster reiterated that announcement on 17 July with a further statement to clarify what was being done.
I am disappointed that it has taken from July last year until now to propose actual legislation with the accompanying policy planning statement. However, it has taken time to get the policy planning statement right. One reason for that was that the health issue had to be dealt with fully. I will speak about that in more detail later, but I wanted to establish the chronology of the consultation first.
I said that partnership was important. Mr Savage mentioned getting the balance right between various demands and wishes. We must take into account the local community, the political institutions and the business community. My Department and I spoke to representatives of the business community this month, and, for the record, we had a good discussion. The Department made it clear that a balance must be struck between what the business community wants and the deliberations that the public expects before masts are erected.
The Department also asked the businesses to fully implement the 10 commitments that they promised, including considerable consultation with the people who will be affected by the masts. We expect the business community to participate fully in the partnership. The Department gave an assurance that, with full planning being implemented, it would ensure that it was carried through as effectively and efficiently as possible with one deferral to counsel, which is now its policy.
Assuming that the Assembly passes the legislation, the Department also said that after six to nine months it would review how the policy was working with the business community and others. The Department is committed to ensuring that the telecommunications sector in Northern Ireland is at the forefront of developments. However, it is also committed to consulting fully with those who are affected by the location of masts. It is not political opportunism on the part of any Member to go for full planning permission. Rather, it represents a response to the many needs of the community.
The Department consulted with the business community on 3 April 2002 and proceeded as quickly as possible to bring the statute and the policy planning statement before the Assembly. Indeed, I want to put on record that the Committee for the Environment stated openly and publicly that the Department should implement the Executive Committee’s decision without further delay.
I noted what Dr McCrea said, and I want to put on record that he apologised to me for having to leave before the end of the debate. I accept his apology. I told him that he could read what I had to say in Hansard. The enduring word is the written word. With regard to implementation, the Department brought the Statutory Rule and the policy planning statement to the Committee for the Environment on 9 April 2002 to inform members that the issues were being dealt with and that the policy planning statement would be published on 11 April. The statement was duly published.
The Statutory Rule was laid before the Committee for consultation, and it examined the issues comprehensively. Dr McCrea referred to five aspects of the planning process in his summary. He stated that the Committee wanted full planning permission; the Department has stated that that will happen. He referred to the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998; there is no need to mention human rights, because it is assumed that human rights are integral to the business of the Assembly. It is part of the convention. No section of the policy planning statement is in conflict with human rights.
Dr McCrea also referred to exclusion zones and incentives for mast-sharing, and I will discuss both issues later. He also referred to a hierarchy of preferred siting; the public can consider where a mast should be located as part of the environmental aspects of the planning process. The Department has reflected fully on the principal concerns of the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment.
I wish to work fully with the Committee. Since I became Minister, I have consulted with the Committee as much as I can, whether orally, by telephone — without stating which type of telephone — or in writing. However, the Assembly has its proper place at the centre of events. The Department of the Environment and I should reflect and collaborate closely with the Committee.
Dr McCrea mentioned departmental prevarication and also referred to issues on which he thought that the Department had failed to consult with the Committee. A week ago, he had strong words for officials. I am responsible for the operation, direction and control of departmental officials. If Dr McCrea has a problem, it should be addressed to me. I will give the House an example.
The rules were laid before the Committee on 9 April. We allowed the Committee seven days to consider the rules, which was normal. A departmental official alerted me that the Committee was concerned about that time period. I immediately told the official to double the period to two weeks — twice the normal time period — so that the Committee could fully deliberate on the Statutory Rule and the Department could take on the Committee’s recommendations. The change of the two dates in the press advertisement was due to my direction in response to what I perceived as a need of the Committee. I want to make it clear that that is not something that merits criticism of my officials.
It is more important to look at the motion. There are two elements to it. It calls for the full implementation of the Stewart Report and requires that no telecommunications masts be erected within 300 yards of a dwelling without consultation. Some Members said that there should be an exclusion zone. However, one Member correctly said that that is not part of the motion. The motion, which I endorse, calls for consultation.
The first element of the motion concerns the Stewart Report. Rev Dr William McCrea said that full planning control is one of the Committee’s key elements; it is also a key element of the Stewart Report. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to have accepted that.
We recognise and respond to the need for full planning control in the decision-making process for locating masts. Compared with current prior approval, that will involve several significant changes, notably greater consultation and much more time for scrutiny by officials. Let me make it clear: the process will ensure that there is a press advertisement for the proposed location of every mast. There will be neighbourhood notification and statutory consultation with district councils. In other words, the public will be more fully engaged in the process.
Mr Shannon said in his opening remarks that absolutely no regard was shown for the people. I do not deny that, in the past, certain things were done where the public were perhaps disregarded. Our aim is to ensure that that does not happen in the future, and we look to full planning control to deliver that. Mr Shannon said that masts
"should not be placed in any schools without the consent of the school".
If a mast is to be put on a school building then, of course, the consent of the owners — in a sense, the school board of governors — is needed. That is normal civil law. However, if a mast is to be located in an area that is generally geographically close to a school, we want full consultation and notification with both the public and district councils. The process will be open and transparent, and we want the public to be fully involved.
Councils will have an important part to play in dealing with all planning. In addition, as part of the partnership I referred to, full planning control now offers greater opportunity for negotiations to take place between the telecom operators and local people. That has occurred to a certain extent in the past, although it may have been sporadic and geographically dispersed. However, the new rules will ensure a more fully rigorous consultation between the telecom operators and the local public. It is hoped that that will make the telecommunications companies more cognisant so that, before they apply for planning approval, they will have considered, with the public, where the mast should be located.
Telecommunications businesses must play their part in this partnership; so must we.
We also look to the community and district councils to play their part. Therefore, the operators must think carefully.
The policy planning statement aspect came up often, and Mr Kennedy, Mr McLaughlin and Mr Bradley mentioned the sharing of masts. Mr Kennedy talked of over-intensification; Mr McLaughlin said that we should not only monitor, but ensure. The policy planning statement will ensure that, to the extent that if any mast is to be approved, the telecommunications industry must demonstrate that it consulted, tried to locate the mast elsewhere and found that that was not possible. Otherwise, no additional mast will be allowed. I hope that that will take care of intensification and of Mr Bradley’s point about siting five masts together. The sharing of masts and the whole environmental issue will be considered, because there must be measures to mitigate visual and environmental impact. Perhaps that can be taken care of by having smaller apparatus, by better design, by using existing structures or buildings, and by sharing mast locations.
The final key area deals with health. In his introduction, Mr Shannon said that people have health concerns. I fully recognise those concerns, but in the same breath I recognise that my Department is not a Department of Health. It deals with planning and other aspects of local government. Part of the development of the policy planning statement was to discuss and negotiate with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is, therefore, for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to advise on health matters. We are fully aware of that; it is part of the policy planning statement. The health advice is very clear, in that telecommunications development must meet certain standards — the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards — in all respects. Not only must it do that, but the operator must state that it does so. We are clear about health.
Timing is wonderful in politics. It was interesting that just as Mr Shannon said that we should agree to precautionary exclusion zones — no-go areas in towns and schools — his mobile phone went off. In all probability, if there were no-go zones in urban areas his phone would not work. The timing of that phone ringing was wonderful. In the end, he commented that mobile phones are a part of life. That is true, and George Savage referred to it. Mr McLaughlin also referred to precautionary exclusion zones.
We must strike a balance. With the exception of Mr Close, who stands as a paragon of virtue — he neither has one, wants one, nor will be forced to use one — the vast majority of people use mobile phones. Precautionary exclusion zones are mentioned in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s guidance, and the Minister, Bairbre de Brún, has commented on that, as has the Stewart Report. I must make it clear that the Stewart Report, which we are to implement as part of this motion, has not recommended exclusion zones. Nor has it recommended any precautionary approach in that context, but I shall come to that in a moment.
I shall make one other point. We are taking the Minister’s advice as part of the policy planning statement. However, were we to disregard her advice, or act in its absence, I should not be surprised if we were challenged in the courts for so doing. That point is worth noting.
Let me return to Mr Close. He said that he did not like emotive words. Mr Speaker, I am conscious of the time, but this is an important issue and I am almost finished.

Mr Speaker: You have less than one minute.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I should perhaps speed up, but I shall address this point. Mr Close referred to precautionary aspects. We are taking on board the Stewart Report’s view of the word "precautionary". Abolition of prior approval is part of what we are doing. We are adopting the public exposure standards of ICNIRP. With respect to the audit of the emissions, they are being monitored and tests have been conducted in Northern Ireland.
Mr Shannon spoke of the need for funding for health research, and Ms Morrice talked about the need for mobile phones. Seven million pounds is available for health research, of which £4 million has been allocated. A lot of that was allocated to deal with the effects of mobile phones, as distinct from the effects of the masts.
I conclude as I started — there are many sensitive issues. A partnership is needed, not just for the Assembly, but for those in the telecommunications industry and the public, because we need phones and masts. Therefore, we must find a way to provide for and satisfy both.

Mr Jim Shannon: I thank the Members who contributed today. Fourteen Members spoke, on recurring themes. I understand the system; therefore, I am disappointed that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was not available to hear the debate, because her input and that of her Department could have been used to draft further legislation that may be needed.
A clear point of view has come through in the debate. Each Member spoke on the health issue. Many mentioned the need for more stringent planning applications. Many voiced their concerns for children who use mobile phones. Each Member mentioned the need for an independent body to monitor the emissions. With the exception of my Colleague from Lagan Valley, Mr Close, who is fortunate enough not to need a mobile phone, most Members acknowledged that need. I am sure that all Members in the Chamber use one. There are technological advances — [Interruption].

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Will Mr Hutchinson allow me to make a brief point of information?

Mr Speaker: I am not sure about Mr Hutchinson, but I am sure that Mr Shannon will.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: My apologies, Mr Shannon. It is for the United Kingdom Government, not Northern Ireland as a regional jurisdiction, to decide on an independent health agency.

Mr Jim Shannon: Regardless of what happens with the legislation, the health issue is clear. People have legitimate concerns and fears about the perceived dangers of telecommunication masts. Those fears have not gone away. Members should never underestimate the opinions of their constituents.
I am concerned. Through the district council, I champion various groups in my constituency on behalf of those who are opposed to telecommunications masts for several reasons. Health concerns are a prime cause for anxiety, but it is also worrying that applications have gone through retrospectively without any consultation with local people. Applications have appeared in the press in small print, and within a month a telecommunications mast has been erected. People in Ballywalter found that a telecommunications mast was erected in the main street overnight. Although people protested, and I contacted the telecommunications firm, it made no difference — the firm insisted on going ahead. Things like that have happened over and over again, and I am concerned that despite all our protestations, the applications went ahead retrospectively.
The Minister indicated that planning law in Northern Ireland has been tightened. It has been tightened, but it does not address many of the issues raised today. What difference would the measures that we have discussed today make? Planning applications would appear in the paper; people would be notified if they live adjacent to the proposed site; and although those people could then respond and tell the planners that they are still unhappy with the position of the telecommunications mast, the decision would still be made to approve it. Therefore, have the regulations and planning changes introduced by the Minister really addressed the problem?
Although I do not mean to criticise the Minister — and I hope that he does not interpret my remarks in that way — the proposed legislation has no teeth and cannot give people what they need. The Minister said that there was particular concern about the possible health effects associated with mobile phone technology. I accept that his Department is not responsible for health, but that is a key issue.
All Members mentioned the need for an independent body to monitor radiation emissions —the Minister said that that would be done — and for action if the emissions should exceed the prescribed limit. The problem is that there is no one to monitor emissions. If mobile phone usage increases in a certain area, the emissions will increase, as will the threat to people’s health. Members are concerned that monitoring should be done, about how it should be done, and about how that information should be passed on to elected representatives and their constituents. Emissions should be monitored by an independent body that could collate the evidence and statistics and make them available to anyone who wishes to see them. Action should then be taken on the basis of that evidence. Telecommunications companies should pay for that body, because they are making a fortune from mobile phone users.
Members mentioned planning regulations and discussed the problems of obtrusive masts being located in conservation areas and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Many mast applications were slipped in through the back door, and companies have used the opportunities afforded by holidays, and so on, to get planning approval.
I mentioned the concerns about the erection of masts in locations such as residential areas, schools, hospitals, town centres and shopping areas. Where a mast is hidden behind a building, it does not mean that people have no concerns about its dangers. The Minister says that the legislation will be tighter in Northern Ireland than it will be in any other part of the United Kingdom; however, it is not tight enough. It is not sufficiently far-reaching, and it has no teeth. We welcome what has happened to date, but it is not enough to address people’s concerns.
Most Members mentioned Government assurances. Mr Close mentioned that, as did Mr Savage. The Government assured us that there was no problem with CJD and BSE, asbestosis or overhead lines. However, over time, it has become apparent that those are very real problems. Therefore, no one could claim that assurances by Government bodies are enough to convince us that everything is all right.
Rev McCrea quoted Sir William Stewart’s very good statement that if there were any "indirect adverse effects" on people’s health and welfare, we should take precautions. This legislation does not constitute a precautionary approach. If there are dangers — and many of us believe that there are — we should err on the side of caution.
The Minister mentioned the motion. If those who live within 300 yards of a proposed mast are fully consulted and say that they are unhappy, their concerns should be responded to. We need such input into the legislation. If the residents concerned say that they do not want a mast, the Minister should respond by ensuring that their wishes are upheld.
We cannot ignore the planning issues or local people’s concerns. A seminar at Queen’s University, which Sir William Stewart attended, was bunged with people from all over Northern Ireland who were concerned about telecommunication masts. Sir William Stewart made some excellent proposals in his report, and we should endorse those. What we have today is a response that gives some portion in relation to planning, but it does not address the overall concerns.
Sir William Stewart advised people to err on the side of caution and to take a precautionary attitude to these planning applications. I believe that we have no option but to follow that line of thought. If there is any indirect adverse effect on the health and welfare of people, then we are duty bound, as elected representatives, to respond to that and to articulate that point of view on their behalf. Looking at this legislation, many will feel that it has not gone far enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure the complete implementation of the recommendations made by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, as laid out in the Stewart Report, and further, to implement a change in legislation to ensure that no telecommunications masts are constructed within 300 yards of any dwelling without full public consultation.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker.]

Mainstream Funding For Ballybeen Women’s Group

Mrs Iris Robinson: As so often is the case within the social fabric of Northern Ireland, women are to be found at the forefront of projects, programmes and schemes aimed at enriching the social well-being of local communities and benefiting the individuals who live within those communities. Likewise, the organisations that they have formed to facilitate the provision of services have been the driving force behind the campaign to have their work recognised and formally backed and funded by central Government. Without the necessary finance, these committed individuals, through their organisations, would not be in a position to maintain and develop the services that they currently provide to the community. The work done over the past number of years has been such that if the services were to be lost, there would be very tangible, negative effects on the health and wealth of the local community.
You might ask what exactly those services are, and, if they are so important, how it is that we do not already know about them. The services provided by Ballybeen Women’s Group, and by other similar groups across Northern Ireland, are many and varied, and history has proved that their operation has been an understated success.
The education and training programme of Ballybeen Women’s Centre is a first step back into full-time education, training, and, ultimately, employment for many women. The centre endeavours to make that transition as easy as possible through a number of measures. It offers courses that are free or where costs are kept to a minimum, which is essential as Ballybeen has been recognised as an official TSN area. It provides free crèche facilities to all participants, which are crucial for mothers wishing to avail of the centre’s services. The timing of courses is set to meet the domestic responsibilities of local women. The structuring of courses at suitable times of the day, which takes into account the domestic responsibilities of women, works hand in hand with the crèche provision to make courses as accessible as possible for all who are interested.
Away from the directly educational and training purposes of the courses provided, the centre offers a warm, friendly and supportive learning environment for all who attend. It serves as an emotional outlet for mothers and others to escape from the pressures of everyday life, to relax and to recharge their batteries. The aim of this particular facility is to provide access and support for women who may need additional basic skills support while on courses — women who wish to improve their basic skills for their own self-esteem or to assist their children with homework. The objective is to equip women with the necessary basic skills to encourage and enable progression to further education, training or employment.
As for the nuts and bolts of the education and training programmes offered, the centre facilitates a range of accredited courses through the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), City and Guilds, GCSE, and Open College Network formats, as well as non-certified courses. The centre is also a member of Belfast Women’s Training Services, which provides two Open College Network-accredited pre-vocational courses, free to women through the Women Moving On and Women Progressing programmes.
Information and communication technology (ICT) is one area of business that has expanded rapidly in the past 10 years and has become ever more important in the fields of both education and learning. Therefore, it is essential that women from the Ballybeen area be provided with the opportunity to expand their knowledge in this field. The group works in conjunction with Dundonald Flexible Learning Centre to provide opportunities to gain various ICT skills and qualifications on site, including RSA, computer literacy and information technology (CLAIT), information business technology and word processing courses.
The provision of ICT training facilities is crucial to the development of local women, and that has been compounded by plans to close the Dundonald outreach centre of Castlereagh College of Further and Higher Education this September. That closure will result in the loss of 161 ICT places, stripping the TSN area of Ballybeen of its main centre for training and further education. This has been done with the knowledge of the Department for Employment and Learning. With Adult Learning Week only three weeks away, that makes complete nonsense of the Department’s policy on this crucial matter.
This development makes the continued existence, growth and success of the Ballybeen Women’s Group infinitely more important. If it should fail to attract the necessary funding, Ballybeen would become an educational and training desert. As a provider of further education, the group operates as an outreach centre of Castlereagh College of Further and Higher Education, with which it works closely and through which tutors are provided for several of its courses.
Good-quality childcare has important benefits for individuals, families, communities, society and the economy as a whole. The Ballybeen Women’s Group promotes the value of education for all ages, from early years upward. There is an emphasis on quality provision in the services for under-fives, which ensures that children are better prepared to move on to mainstream education. Children who experience good pre-school education, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds or with special needs, are better prepared for school, learn more quickly and have fewer emotional and behavioural difficulties in later life. The better the start children have at school, the more likely they are to use their school experience positively.
The Ballybeen Women’s Group has successfully developed and provided quality childcare services for the under-fives in the Ballybeen area since 1989. As well as providing crèche facilities, Ballybeen Women’s Group also provides facilities for the operation of pre-school and toddlers’ groups. The crèche facility is available to anyone using the education services in the centre or drop-in facility. The pre-school operates five morning sessions every week, Monday to Friday, for those aged from three and a half to four years old. The toddlers’ group caters for children aged from two years, nine months to three and a half years.
Last year, the organisation succeeded in opening new premises to meet the demand for its pre-school programme and to relocate crèche facilities to the vacated pre-school. It is a testament to the commitment of those involved that structural and renovation work was completed in four months.
The centre also operates a special needs training course, aimed at developing students’ knowledge, understanding, confidence and competence when working with children with a variety of special needs and providing fundamental knowledge to any student who wishes to be assessed at NVQ level. This course enables students to understand the need to develop relationships with both parents and professionals and to understand the need for, and to devise, a structured programme for the child with special needs in consultation with parents.
Perhaps the most progressive and ambitious project led by the Ballybeen Women’s Group is the peer education programme, which is a community-based health project for young people between the ages of 10 and 25. The programme is aimed at providing a sensitive and non-threatening environment in which young people can discuss sex education and alcohol and drug abuse and the impact that those issues have on society. Young people can identify their own needs and discuss how they can be addressed.
At present, the centre has a pool of educators who are involved in training other young people of a similar age. Those educators are volunteers who have undergone intensive training in health issues and accredited training in communication and group-working skills. That training has provided them with the ability to make what is an imaginative and innovative programme work for those who participate.
The programme gives young people the chance to discuss their attitudes towards their sexual activity and the impact of HIV and single parentage, and to reflect on their feelings. One exercise involves a young person taking responsibility for a simulated baby, and the centre has obtained two of those. The simulated babies replicate a real child’s behaviour and illustrate the complexities of being responsible for a child. The aim is to provide an experience for young adults that simulates the parenting of a baby and explores the emotional, financial and social consequences of becoming a real parent.
Those issues tend to be more common in areas —

Mr Speaker: Order. I advise the Member that several other Members wish to contribute to the debate. If she could bring her remarks to a close reasonably soon, it would give them all an opportunity to speak.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I understand. Thank you. Those issues tend to be more common in areas of social deprivation. The programme serves to provide information on the issues to those that are most likely to come into direct contact with them.
I want support for the Ballybeen Women’s Group, so I shall leave it at that and allow other Members to speak.

Mr Speaker: If other Members could keep their speeches to just under eight minutes, that would give the Minister 10 minutes to reply, as is the normal custom.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank Mrs Robinson for introducing this Adjournment debate. I tutored the Ballybeen Women’s Group on the subject of "women into politics", so I am aware of the services and support that it provides to women in Ballybeen.
The issues and problems facing Ballybeen Women’s Centre are duplicated in women’s centres throughout Northern Ireland. To say that the role of women in the community is vital may sound clichéd, but I make no apology for stating the obvious. The majority of women work at grass-roots level in the community, and women’s centres are an essential part of that work. According to the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action’s publication, ‘State of the Sector II’, 10,322 women were employed full-time in the community sector in 1996-97. That amounts to 31% of the total workforce. Some 8,270 part-time jobs amounted to 25% of the workforce. However, there is a failure to recognise the importance of grass-roots development as a basis for a growing economy.
Women’s groups across the Province are adversely affected by the lack of core funding. Those issues cannot simply be regarded as women’s issues. They need to be seen as society’s issues. Slightly more than half the population are women, and until they are enabled to take their positions and participate fully in public life at all levels, a serious democratic deficit will remain.
A society that excludes such a large section of the population from participating in the decisions that affect their lives cannot be described as a genuine and inclusive democracy. We cannot afford not to make use of the talents and skills that can bring better standards of living for all.
Many women’s initial involvement in the community is based on a single issue. They concentrate on matters such as children’s play areas, traffic-calming measures, drug problems, or the setting up of after-school clubs. Those issues are crucially important, and many women see them as a stepping stone to developing an infrastructure for the whole community. They also give them an opportunity to widen their horizons and use their experience as a launch pad to get involved in decision-making at a higher level.
There are many obvious pitfalls that await us in the real world when we try to get actively involved in the community, and underfunding is the main one.
Women’s groups provide an invaluable service for the whole community: not just for women. Often when applying for funding to continue services, groups are passed from one Department to another. At this point, I would have liked to ask the Minister for Social Development, whose Department has responsibility for funding the community and voluntary sectors, why women’s groups have constantly to battle for funding given that the Harbinson review — which was led by the Department for Social Development — looked into funding in the voluntary sector as a whole. I cannot do so, as the Minister has not seen fit to attend the debate.
This issue is not solely a matter of gender policy; it falls within the remit of the Department for Social Development’s funding for community and voluntary groups and because of that I would have expected Mr Dodds to contribute to the debate. Perhaps he is boycotting the Assembly as well as the Executive.
I understand that OFMDFM is working with Departments on a strategy for gender policy and that an interdepartmental group has been convened to look at the issues surrounding women’s groups. The petition concerning women’s groups presented by Ms Morrice on 19 March has gone to the Committee of the Centre and is being considered. I hope that something positive and proactive will come from that.
We should never underestimate the amount of hard work, dedication and achievement that women have given to their communities and the wider effects on people in other sectors who have gained from those experiences. It is essential that the numbers, and calibre, of such women grow in the future. That can only happen by way of a co-ordinated approach across all sectors and in particular the Departments of the Assembly.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I express gratitude to my Colleague, Mrs I Robinson, for bringing such an important subject to the Floor. I support the work of the Ballybeen Women’s Group and all other such organisations that find themselves in exactly the same uncertain funding position. Ms Lewsley has mentioned that uncertainty.
Mrs I Robinson has fully explained what is needed. I shall simply say a few words about what I know of the Ballybeen Women’s Group. It is an important health, education and childcare provider. I had the recent pleasure of attending a distribution of merit certificates to successful students. I pay tribute to all recipients, and, of course, the administrators in all aspects of the work going on at the Ballybeen Women’s Group.
As elected representatives, we must do what we can to ensure that this vital facility is not threatened. I am grateful that the Minister with some responsibility for these matters is in attendance. I appeal to those in authority in the Assembly to ensure that sufficient funding is in place, not only to sustain the present activities at Ballybeen but also to enhance and extend the work into new programmes. The group provides an excellent and valuable human and social service to a great many people, not only in the Ballybeen area but also to a much wider field, and that service must continue.
It would be proper to express gratitude to the organisations that have contributed to this group and to other groups. Ballybeen Women’s Group recently had an important visitor: the Paymaster-General from the Treasury Office. She must have seen for herself the extraordinary work carried out by the group. Had I been in her position, I would have simply written a large cheque to enable Ballybeen Women’s Group to get on with its work, sound in the knowledge that the service will continue without worry or concern. I ask the Minister and all Departments to do what they can to ensure that the work of the Ballybeen Women’s Group continues.

Ms Jane Morrice: I welcome today’s debate, which gives us another opportunity to raise the issue of the disgraceful situation that women’s groups that provide such a tremendous resource for the community have to scramble around for funding.
There is no proper reward or recognition for the tremendous work being carried out in these centres. MrsI Robinson listed the particulars of Ballybeen, and Ms Lewsley and Mr McCarthy said that such work is replicated throughout Northern Ireland. However, for some reason, Ministers’ eyes are blinkered: they will not go and look at the centres and they will not recognise the type of work being done there. I could go into detail about that work, however, Iris Robinson spoke at length about the different areas. We are talking about health, education, training and social services.
It may be better to think of this topic in budgetary terms rather than in terms of social affairs. These groups are saving money and are helping health budgets because of the advice and counselling they provide to women who are vulnerable to illnesses such as depression. The psychiatric support being given in these centres reduces pressure in some parts of the Health Service. There are good budgetary reasons for supporting these centres.
The centres provide basic skills for women — reducing pressure on the Training and Employment Agency. Women are given the confidence to try out their skills in information technology in a safe, warm, friendly atmosphere. The centres reduce the pressure on training budgets that would require people to go elsewhere for assistance. They also reduce pressure on childcare provision and on the Citizens Advice Bureaux. The value of their work must be recognised.
Iris Robinson mentioned youth services, and that is an important project for peer education and the fact that young people can learn about sex education. They can also learn about the use and abuse of drugs. How do we measure the value of that to our community, and where is that recognition being given? There are accredited courses; special needs training courses and free crèche facilities.
An important thing that has changed in society is the education of our children. They are coming to the centres and are being educated: their mothers are being educated also. Charles D McIver once said:
"If you educate a man, you educate an individual; if you educate a woman, you educate a family".
I believe, and I accept, that things are changing, but I know that Mrs Robinson totally agrees with me. The centres are vital, and that must be recognised by our society.
I was interested in Ms Lewsley’s figures that approximately 10,000 women are employed full-time in the centres, and 8,000 are employed part-time. Those people would otherwise be unemployed — so that is reducing pressure. If Ministers only understand the parlance of economic policy, then they should look at the different areas where centres are reducing pressure.
Undoubtedly the EU, in the Peace I programme, recognised the value of centres and paid money to support them: that is where the original money came from, and I am ready to stand corrected. The big problem now is that Peace II is not providing the facilities for funding the centres. Why was their value recognised under Peace I, but, suddenly, not valued under what is supposed to be the same programme?
What is going on here? It is time that the Government recognised the value. That is why we are calling for core funding for Ballybeen and all the other centres. They should not have to scramble about from one Department to another filling in application forms. Things must be made easier for these women. They provide an important and valuable service. If we cannot provide core funding — and we should not accept an "If we cannot" — at the very least we have to provide some sort of safety net. Those who apply for Peace II funding and do not get it should have their applications looked at again so that they can get that funding. If they do not meet the criteria, then the criteria are wrong. Change the criteria and get the funding through to these groups.

Mr Mark Robinson: I would like to thank my Colleague Mrs Iris Robinson for tabling this Adjournment debate today. It is extremely important that the subject of mainstream funding for the community and the voluntary sector is addressed.
Once it had been noted that this Adjournment debate was to be held today, I received a call from the Windsor Women’s Centre in my constituency of South Belfast. They asked me to highlight the difficulties in relation to funding which are facing women’s centres across the Province. I would like to focus on and to highlight the marvellous contribution that the voluntary and community centres make to Northern Ireland and how groups such as women’s centres are of relevance to every community within the Province. Centres such as Ballybeen Women’s Centre and the Windsor Women’s Centre help the community to grow by adopting a bottom-up approach and, in doing so, provide services that are delivered and managed by the people. These organisations have vast amounts of experience in dealing with women’s issues and deliver much-needed support to women of all ages and to the community as a whole.
Women’s centres provide a valued service, and they play a major part in the lives of our communities. The Ballybeen Women’s Centre and, indeed, the Windsor Women’s Centre are both situated in areas of high unemployment, and both areas have a high rating under the Noble index with regard to deprivation. Both groups go a long way to support vulnerable and socially isolated women. They deliver their services based on the needs of women and their families. These include affordable quality childcare provision, education classes, young mother’s groups, baby clinics, elderly women’s groups, youth clubs and advice units. These centres also operate on a cross-community basis and provide support to both sides of the religious divide, therefore opening up communication between the different communities. Many strong friendships and relationships have been formed as a result, which makes for a more stable and peaceful community.
The funding process is often a complex and fragmented one in that these groups are dependent on several different funding streams for a variety of different budgets. The funding process can also be painfully slow and complicated, and as a result these groups have to prove their eligibility for funding due to the competition for resources. Unfortunately this means that many groups are suffering as a result.
I would like at this point to examine the community fund, which shares out money raised by the National Lottery to charities and to voluntary and community groups. The community fund recently launched its new strategic plan for 2002 through to 2007, and unfortunately the expected grant income falls from £287 million for 2002-03 down to £215 million for 2004-05. This will mean that financial support will not be given to as many projects as before, and tough decisions will ultimately have to be made in order to ascertain which project should be funded. At most, women’s centres have previously been guaranteed perhaps three years funding, but the recent trend of budgets being cut has led to the closure of many centres or has led to certain projects being suspended. Many women’s centres have operated on a shoestring budget for many years, and at present there is no continuity of funding.
Unfortunately, this sector is living from one year to the next, not knowing if it will be provided with funding to allow it to continue with its valuable work.
We must not underestimate the role that the voluntary and community sector play in providing support and its contribution to the development of social inclusion and equality. We must be encouraged by the work of these organisations to address issues associated with women and the emphasis they place on the personal development, training and upskilling of individuals to encourage and better equip them to escape the benefit trap.
There is a real pressure on these groups, and funding is required to sustain their valuable support services. Finance is crucial to the success of the voluntary sector, and I therefore call on the Government to promote and support this work through the provision of mainstream funding. By achieving that, women’s centres will have more stability and recognition of their valuable work and will be free to raise funds for other projects in the various centres thus enabling them to deliver the community development aspect of their work.

Mr Jim Shannon: Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion.
It’s clamant that Ballybeen’s Weimen’s Curn gets ahauld o mainstream siller, for it’s a lyfelyne ti monie o the weimen as gies it a cry-in. The curn pits siller inti upbring an skuilin for weimen fae thae airts sae as thai can get examins as wul mebbe gie thaim a heft oot o the fankil o puirtith. This lyfelyne o edication is growein in importance, sin yin o the countie’s mukklest employers is eftir layin aff mair an mair o its wirkars in the bygaen seiven month, maist lyke as an affcum o the Septemmer 11 disaster. This haes left monie faimlies on the breidlyne, aften wi nae pey cummin intil the housshauld.
It is imperative that Ballybeen Women’s Group gains mainstream funding, because it is a lifeline for many of the women who attend it. I was fortunate to be invited by the group one morning to hear a wee bit about it, and I shared their scones and coffee.
I learnt what the group does and its impact on the estate. The group invests in training and educating local women so that they can gain qualifications that may help to lift them out of the trap of poverty. The lifeline of education is increasingly important, as one of the country’s main employers has laid off more and more of its workers in the past seven months, apparently as a repercussion of the September 11 disaster. That has left many families on the breadline, with low wages going into the households. Groups such as the Ballybeen Women’s Group have offered a lifeline to such families, giving the women an opportunity to re-educate themselves and learn skills that will help them to find gainful employment. Skills such as computer literacy are learnt at such groups, which many did not have the opportunity to learn at school. Many women only need to brush up on some skills, and they find that the women’s group has a less intimidating feel than the regulated and bewildering environment that local colleges may present.
Many women progress to local further education colleges, once the informal and nurturing atmosphere such women’s groups around the countryside provide has restored confidence in their ability. Many have been out of the workplace and learning sphere for as much as 20 years, and they find that the encouragement they receive from the women’s group is what is needed to encourage them to achieve anything they set their minds to.
Not all the courses are strictly academic. Many help women relax. My wife often tells me that she needs to get out of the house and away from the children at least one night a week just to keep her sanity. There are classes on crafts, sign language, first aid and assertive parenting. These courses are designed to attract women of all interests and give them time out, indulging in something purely for themselves, which can only be good for them. If the Ballybeen Women’s Group does not receive funding, these services will be lost, and the group will have to break up after being in existence for 18 years and helping countless numbers of ladies in the estate.
The Ballybeen Women’s Group has been at the centre of promoting women’s issues, bringing to local women the facts about such things as cancer screening programmes. The help that the group has brought to the community cannot be measured. By bringing facts about such things as breast or ovarian cancer to the fore, ultimately the lives of countless women will be saved. When someone is distressed and frightened by what she thinks she may have, the women of the community find the information they require in a simple and clear way.
Those groups are incredible sources of strength and understanding to the people that attend them. Friendships are struck up that might not be formed otherwise in this busy and sometimes anti-social twenty-first century, where people are more concerned about themselves than about the community. The women form the sort of support networks that have not been readily available since the beginning of the last century. The women that attend are the grandmothers and mothers of teenagers, newborn babies and toddlers. They all converse and offer advice and a helping hand to each other.
That type of networking was once the mainstay of society. However, in our modern, technologically advanced world, the art of communication with our neighbours has been lost, and reaching out to others is sometimes fraught. The women’s group provides an environment in which people can talk to others on the same platform with acceptance guaranteed.
One of the most attractive and supportive aspects of the Ballybeen Women’s’ Group is the provision of a crèche for toddlers and pre-schoolchildren. The mothers and the women who work there form a support network, and they can train to become qualified childminders. Therefore by using common sense, this group has helped three parts of the community — those who wish to take an hour’s break from the children to participate on a course or catch up with friends can do so knowing that their children are being cared for; the children who socialise with others and gain social skills; and the childcare students who get hands-on experience, while being fully supervised by experienced childminders. The women’s centre is a model of good practice for service delivery. The Assembly, and the Government as a whole, should mirror the joined-up approach that it takes to community needs.
These centres, of which the Ballybeen group is only one, are first-class examples of how to provide vital services, which will disappear if funding is not found for them. That would be disastrous for the policy of targeting social need and for the workforce as a whole. I support the motion.

Mr James Leslie: My Colleagues in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and I appreciate the valuable work that women’s centres do. I am acutely aware that, as MsLewsley pointed out, at least 50% of the population may be affected by their work.
I acknowledge the valuable work that is done in education and training, and particularly the contribution that is made towards bringing women into the workforce or getting them back into the workforce, according to circumstances. They also provide family support, childcare, after-school projects and a range of other services.
It is clear that women’s centres are an important resource for the community as a whole. Ballybeen Women’s Group has made a considerable contribution to a large community where there are high areas of deprivation. Recently my Colleague, MrHaughey, met representatives of women’s organisations to gain a better understanding of the issues. As a result of that meeting, we have taken the initiative of bringing together an interdepartmental group to explore issues relating to the funding of women’s organisations.
Members will appreciate that several Departments are involved, and officials from my Department are in discussions with them to agree a final position paper with a view to identifying how the problems can be most effectively addressed. That paper will be ready within the next few weeks.
The funding difficulties of women’s centres are not unique to the voluntary and community sector. Funding requirements are not a unique subject for debate in the House. Ministers’ jobs would be much simpler if the reservoir of funding were always full. It is important that women’s centres’ funding requirements are examined in the context of the funding for the voluntary and community sector as a whole.
That was recognised in the recent Harbinson Report, with which some Members may be familiar. That review was led by the Department for Social Development. It recommended that a task force be established to look at funding issues across the voluntary and community sector. An integral part of the work of that task force will be to examine the funding of women’s centres.
I must emphasise that although I am responding to the debate because the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister felt that it was important that I should do so, the funding of women’s centres is principally the responsibility of the Department for Social Development. We have asked our officials to work with those in the Department for Social Development in order to identify, as a matter of importance, the most pressing needs of such groups and how those needs might be addressed.
On the issue of Ballybeen Women’s Group, which Mrs Iris Robinson has brought to the attention of the House, I understand that the centre has in recent years been successful in obtaining funding from a variety of sources, including over £360,000 from the Peace I programme. Ms Morrice raised the issue of obtaining funding from the Peace II programme, in which some of the criteria may be different.
Peace II and the EU building sustainable prosperity programme can supply funding. However, applicants must meet the criteria. The criteria for Peace II are peace orientated. The activities for which funding is applied must address the legacy of the conflict and/or they must develop the opportunities that are presented by peace. I hope that within those criteria there will be scope for women’s centres to make successful applications.

Ms Jane Morrice: I want to raise a point in relation to European funding. It is interesting that the Minister mentioned the criteria for Peace II, which were exactly the same as the criteria for Peace I. It was recognised that women’s centres did contribute to peace and reconciliation. Indeed, they made a vital contribution to peace and reconciliation in Peace I, so why not in Peace II?

Mr James Leslie: There is no particular "why not" regarding Peace II. I believe that opportunities will be there under that programme.
Ballybeen Women’s Group also received funding under the early years development fund of £100,000 until the end of the 2003 financial year. I understand that that funding comes from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and that the Department will endeavour where possible to continue that support on a project basis.
During 2001-02 Ballybeen Women’s Group was funded by a grant of £67,000 from the Belfast Regeneration Office. Earlier in the calendar year, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety made an outline submission to Belfast Regeneration Office for further funding of £92,000 to support the Ballybeen Women’s Group during the 2002-03 financial year. The Belfast Regeneration Office has given that a high priority classification and has asked for a full application. My understanding is that when the full application is received it is likely to be looked on favourably.
I am conscious that the future funding of this sector is a crucial matter and one of grave concern to those involved in women’s groups. That is why the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has set up the task force, which is the body that will examine future funding. We must now look to the task force to carry out its work and to make its recommendations.
Adjourned at 7.29 pm